Skip to main content

Full text of "CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM VOLUME XLIX"

See other formats


ill  in  HI 


107  146 


CITE    BY    TITJL-IT    A2STD 

s    §    22 


CORPUS  JURIS 
SECUNDUM 

A  COMPLETE  RESTATEMENT  OF  THE  ENTIRE 

AMERICAN  LAW 

AS  DEVELOPED  BY 

ALL  REPORTED  CASES 


By 

The  Editorial  Staffs 

of 
THE  AMERICAN  LAW  BOOK  CO. 

and 
WEST  PUBLISHING  CO. 


VOLUME   XLIX 

Kept  to  Date  by  Cumulative  Annual  Pocket  Parts 


Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
The  American  Law  Book  Co. 


The   Amerioa.n   Law   Boole 


EXPLANATION 


r  I  MrlE  object  in  view  in  preparing  Corpus  Juris  Secundiim  has  been  two- 
JL  fold :  First,  to  provide  a  complete  encyclopedic  treatment  of  the  whole 
body  of  the  law,  which  means  that  it  must  be  based  upon  all  the  reported 
cases;  Second,  to  present  each  title  of  the  law  in  form  and  content  most  suit- 
able as  a  means  of  practical  reference  for  the  Bench  and  Bar. 

Corpus  Juris  Secundum  is  therefore  a  complete  restatement  of  the  entire 
"body  of  American  Law.  The  clear-cut  and  exhaustive  propositions  compris- 
ing the  text  are  supported  by  all  the  authorities  from  the  earliest  times  to  date. 
The  supporting  case  citations,  conspicuously  set  out  in  the  notes,  point  to  all 
decisions  handed  down  since  the  publication  of  Corpus  Juris.  When  the 
searcher  may  wish  to  consult  earlier  authorities,  a  specific  reference  to  Corpus 
Juris  makes  available  all  cases  back  to  1658. 

Each  title  is  preceded  by  a  complete  section  analysis,  greatly  simpli- 
fied to  facilitate  research.  Where  the  scope  of  any  section  is  such  as  to  re- 
quire it,  a  more  minute  analysis  is  found  thereunder  in  its  appropriate  place 
within  the  title  (see  Abatement  and  Revival,  Section  112).  The  convenience 
of  this  method — an  innovation  in  encyclopedic  writing — must  immediately 
commend  itself. 

A  concise  black-letter  summary,  indicative  of  its  scope,  precedes  the 
full  treatment  or  statement  of  the  law  under  each  section.  These  introduc- 
tory summaries,  concise  and  free  from  interlineation  of  authorities,  have 
proven  of  great  convenience  and  value  in  legal  research* 

An  index  is  found  in  the  back  of  each  volume  covering  the  titles  con- 
tained therein,  thus  providing  another  convenient  means  of  ready  access  to  the 
text  and  notes* 

Corpus  Juris  Secundum  is  kept  to  date  by  means  of  annual  cumula- 
tive pocket  parts  for  each  volume.  This  feature  of  supplementation  which 
has  proved  so  successful  in  modern  digests  and  statutes  conveniently,  and 
with  certainty,  keeps  each  title  constantly  to  date  through  current  cases  and 
new  precedents. 

Corpus  Juris  Secundum  represents  tbie  combined  product  of  the  high'est 
editorial  talent  and  manufacturing  skill  Its  many  excellent  editorial  features 
are  fittingly  accompanied  by  corresponding  innovations  and  improvements  in 
mechanical  arrangement,  typography,  and  design,  which  .the  publisher  believes 
will  commend 'themselves  to  the  profession  as  representing  a  new  standard 
in  legal  publications.  THE  puBLISHERS 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


REPORTS  AND  TEXTBOOKS 


A. 

Abb. 

Abb.Adm. 
Abb.App.Dec. 
Abb.Dec. 
Abb.N.Oas. 
Abb.Pr. 
Abb.Pr.N.S. 
A'Beck.Res. 
Judgm. 


[1018JA.O. 

Acton 
Adams 


A 

Atlantic  Reporter 

Abbott  (U.S.) 

Abbott's  Admiralty  (U.S.) 

Abbott's  Appeals  Decisions  (N.Y.) 

Abbott's  Decisions  (N.Y.) 

Abbott's  New  Cases  (N.Y.) 

Abbott's  Practice  (N.Y.) 

Abbott's  Practice  New  Series  (N.Y.) 

A'Beckett's      Reserved      Judgments 

15)17]  Appeal  Oases  (Can.) 
LW  Reports   [1918]  Appeal  Oases 


Add.EcdL 

A.&E. 

A.&K.Eac.L. 

A.&E.Enc.L.&Pr, 

Aik* 

A.K.Marsh. 

Ala. 

Ala.App. 

Alaska 

Alb.LJ. 

A.L.O. 

A1C.&N. 

Alc.Rog.Gas* 

Aleyn 

Alison  Pr, 

Allen 

Allen  (N.B.) 

Alta.L. 

A.L.R. 

Am.ltankr, 

Ambl. 

A.M.C. 

Am.Corp.Cas, 

Am.Or. 

Am.D. 

Am.&E.Corp.Cas. 

Am.&E.Corp.Cas. 

N»S» 

Am.&Eng.Ency. 
Law 

Am.&E.EqIX 

Am.&Eng.Pat 

Cas, 
Am.&Eng.R.R, 

Cas, 

Am.Electr.Cas. 
Am.&E.K.Cas. 
Am  &B.R.Cas.N 

S. 

AmJJntL. 

Am.L.J. 
AmJJ.J.N.8. 

Am.L.Rec. 
CJ.S. 


Acton  (Eng.) 

Adams  Reports  (N.H.) 

Addison  (Pa.) 

Addams'  Ecclesiastical  (Bng.) 

Adolphus  &  Ellis  (Bug.) 

American  &  English  Encyclopaedia  of 

Law 
American  &  English  Encyclopedia  of 

Law  &  Practice 
Aikens  (Vt) 
A.  K.  Marshall  (Ky.) 
Alabama 

Alabama  Appellate  Court 
Alaska 

Albany  Law  Journal 
American  Leading  Cases 
Alcott  &  Napier  (Eng.) 
Alcock's  Registry  Cases  (Bng.) 
Aleyn  (Eng.) 
Alison's  Practice  (Sc.) 
Allen  (Mass.) 
Allen,  New  Brunswick 
Alberta  Law 
American  Law  Reports 
American  Bankruptcy  (U.S.) 
Ambler  (Eng.) 
American  Maritime  Cases 
American  Corporation  Cases 
American  Criminal 
American  Decisions 
American    &    English    Corporation 

Oases 

American  &  English  Corporation 
Cases  New  Series 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia  of 
Law 

American  &  English  Decisions  in  Eq- 
uity 

American  and  English  Patent  Oases 

American  and  English  Railroad  Oases 
American  Electrical  Cases 
American  &  English  Railroad  Oases 

American  &  English  Railroad  Oases 

New  Series 
American    Journal  of  International 

American  Law  Journal  (Pa.) 
American  Law  Journal  New  Series 

American  Law  Record  (Ohio) 


Am.L.Reg. 
Am.L.Reg.N.S. 
Am.Law  Reg.(O. 

S.) 

Am.L.Rev. 
AmJUT.Bankr. 

Am.Law  lust 

Am.Negl.Cas. 

Am.NegLR, 

A.M.&0. 

Am.Prob. 

Am.Prob.N.S. 

Am.Pr. 

Am.R. 

Am.R.&Corp. 

Am.R.Rep. 

Am.S.R. 

Am.St.R.D, 

And. 

Andr. 

Ann.Cas. 

Ann.Oas.l912A 

Anstr. 

Anth.N.P. 

App.D.O. 

App.Oas. 

App.Div. 

Anz. 

Ark. 

ArkJust 

Arn. 

Arn.&H. 

Ashra. 

Aspin. ' 

Atk. 

Austr.C.L.R 

AustrJur. 
Austr.L.T. 


Bacon  Abr. 

BaiLEq. 

Bailey. 


B.&Ald. 

Baldw. 

BalfPr. 

Ball&B. 

Bank.&InsJa. 

Bann. 

Bann.&A. 

Barb. 

Barb.Oh. 

B.&Arn. 

Barn. 

Barn.0h. 

Barnes 

Barnes  Notes 

Batty 

B.£Aust 

Baxt 


B.O. 


American  Law  Register 

American  Law  Register  New  Series 

American  Law  Register  Old  Series 

American  Law  Review 

American  Law  Times  Bankruptcy  Re- 
ports 

American  Law  Institute, 
Restatement  of  the  Law 

American  Negligence  Cases 

American  Negligence  Reports 

Armstrong,  Macartney  &  Ogle  (Ir.) 

American  Probate 

American  Probate  New  Series 

American  Practice 

American  Reports 

American  Railroad  &  Corporation 

American  Railway  Reports 

American  State  Reports 

American  Street  Railway  Decisions 

Anderson  (Eng.) 

Andrews  (Eng.) 

American  &  English  Annotated  Oases 

American  Annotated  Oases  1912A,  et 
seq. 

Anstruther  (Eng.) 

Authors  Nisi  Prlug  (N.Y.) 

Appeal  Cases  (D.O.) 

Law  Reports  Appeal  Cases  (Eng.) 

Appellate  Division  (N.Y.) 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

Arkley's  Justiciary  (Sc.) 

Arnold  (Eng.) 

Arnold  &  Hodges  (Eng.) 

Ashmead  (Pa.) 

Aspinall's  Maritime  Oases  (Eng.) 

Atkyn  (Eng.) 

Commonwealth   Law   Reports,   Aus- 
tralia 

Australian  Jurist 

Australian  Law  Times 

B 

Bacon's  Abridgment  (Eng.) 

Bailey's  Equity  (S.O.) 

Bailey's  Law  (S.C.) 

Barnewall  &  Adolphus  (Eng.) 

Barnewall  &  Alderson  (Eng.) 

Baldwin  (U.S.)        ^  v 

Balfour's  Practice  (Sc.)  • 

Ball&Beatty  (Ir.) 

Bankruptcy  and  Insolvency  Reports 

(Eng.) 

Bannister  (Eng.) 
Banning  &  Arden  (U.S.) 
Barbour  (N.Y.) 
Barbour's  Chancery  (N.Y.) 
Barron  &  Arnold  (Eng.) 
Barnardiston  King's  Bench  (Eng.) 
Barnardiston  Chancery  (Bng.) 
Barnes'  Practice  Cases  (Eng.) 
Barnes'  Notes  (Eng.) 
Batty  (Ir.) 

Barron  &  Austin  (Eng.) 
Baxter  (Tenn.) 
Bay  (S.O.) 

Broderip  &  Binghaxn  (Eng.). 
British  Columbia 


Tin 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


B.&0. 

B.&MaoL 

B.D.&O. 

Beatty 

Beav. 

Beay.&WaIRy. 

Cas. 

Boav.R.&C.Cas. 
Beaw.Lex.Mer. 
Bee 
BelL 

Bell  App.Cas. 
Bell  Cas. 
Bell  C.C. 
Bell  Comra. 
Bell  Sc.Cas. 
Ben. 
BenL 
BenL&D. 
B.&H.O.Cas. 

Bibb 

Bing. 

Bing.N.Cas« 

Binn. 

Biss. 

BittW,&P. 

Black 

Blackf. 


Barnewall  &  Cresswell  (Eng.) 

Browne  &  Macnamara  (Eng.) 

Blackham,  Dundas  &  Osborne  (Ir.) 

Beatty  (Ir.) 

Beavan  (Eng.) 

Beavan  &  Walford's  Railway  and  Ca- 

ual  Cases  (Eng.) 
English  Railway  and  Canal  Cases 
Beawes  Lex  Mercatoria  (Eng.) 
Bee  (U.S.) 
Bellewe  (Eng.) 
Bell's  Appeal  Cases  (Sc.) 
Bell's  Cases  (Sc.) 
Bell's  Crown  Cases  (Bng.) 
Bell's  Commentaries  (Eng.) 
Bell's  Scotch  Court  of  Session  Cases 
Benedict  (U.S.) 
Benloe  (Eng.) 
Benloe  &  Dallison  (Eng.) 
Bennett  &  Heard  Leading 

Cases  (Eng.) 
Bibb  (Ky.) 
Bingbam  (Eng.) 
Bingbam's  New  Oases  (Eng.) 
Biiiney  (Pa.) 
BisseU  (U.S.) 
Bittleson,  Wise  &  Parnell  (Eng.) 


Criminal 


Black  (U.S.) 
Blackford  (Ind.) 


Blackstone  Comm.  Blacks  tone  Commentaries 


Bla.H. 

Blair  Co. 

Bland 

Bland's  Oh. 

BJatcbf. 

Blatckf.&H. 

Blatchf.PrizeCas. 

Bligh 

Blish  N.S. 

B.Mon. 

Bond 

Bouvier* 

Bovco 

B.&P. 

B.&P.N.B. 

Bract 

Bradf.Surr. 

Brayt. 

B.R.G. 

Brev. 

Brewst 

Brightly 

Brightly  El.Cas. 

Bro.Ch. 

Brock. 

Brock.Cas. 

Brod.&B. 

Brod.&Fr. 

Brodix  Am.&E. 

Pat.Cas. 
Bro.Just. 
Brook  Abr. 
Brook  N.Cas. 
Brooke  N.G. 
Bro.P.C. 
Brown  Adm. 
Brown,  Ch. 
Brown  Ecc. 
Brown  N.P. 
Brown,Parl.Cas. 
Browne 
Brown.&I». 
BrownL&G. 
Bruce 

Brunn.0oll.0as. 
B.&S. 
B.T.A. 
Buck 

Puller  NJP. 
Bulstr. 


Henry  Blackstone's  English  Common 
Pleas  (Eng.) 

Blair  County  (Pa.) 

Bland  (Md.) 

Bland  Chancery  (Md.) 

Blatchford  (U.S.) 

Blatchford  &  Howland  (U.S.) 

Blatchford's  Prize  Cases  (U.S.) 

Bligh  (Eng.) 

Bligh  New  Series  (Eng.) 

B.  Monroe  (Ky.) 

Bond  (U.S.) 

Bouvier's  Law  Dictionary 

Boyce  (Del.) 

Bosanquet  &  Puller  (Eng.) 

Bosanquet  &  Puller's  New  Reports 
(Eng.) 

Brae  ton  de  Legibus  et  Consuetudini- 
bus  AngliiB 

Bradford's  Surrogate  (N.Y.) 

Brayton  (Vt.) 

British  Ruling  Cases 

Brevard  (S.G.) 

Brews ter  (Pa.) 

Brightly  (Pa.) 

Brightly's  Election  Gases  (Pa.) 

Brown's  Chancery  (Eng.) 

Brockoiibrough  (U.S.) 

Brockenbrough's  Virginia  Cases 

Broderip  &  Bingham  (Eng.) 

Broderick  &  JTremontle's  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Coses 

Brodix's  American. &  English  Patent 

Cases 

Brouu's  Justiciary  (Sc.) 
Brook's  Abridgments  (Eng.) 

Brook's  New  Gases  (Eng,) 

Brooke's  New  Cases 

Brown's  Parliament  Oases  (Eng.) 

Brown's  Admiralty  (U.S.) 

Brown's  Chancery  Cases  (fing.) 

Brown  Ecclesiastical  (Eng.) 

Brown's  Michigan  Nisi  Prius 

Brown  Parliamentary  Cases  (Eng.) 

Browne  (Pa.) 

Browning  &  Lushinffton  (Bng.) 

Brownlow  &  Goldesborough  (Eng.) 

Bruce  (Sc.) 

Brunner's  Collective  Oases  (U.S.) 

Best  &  Smith  (Eng.) 

Board  of  Tax  Appeals  (U.S.) 

Buck  (Eng.) 

Buller's  Nisi  Prius  (Eng.) 

Bulstrode  (Eng.) 


Burn. 

Burr. 

Burr.S.Oas. 

Busb. 

Busb.Eq. 

Bush 

B.W.C.O. 


Bunbury 
Burnett 


isT) 


Cab.&E. 

Cai. 

Cai.Cas. 

Cal 

Cal.(2d) 

Cal.App. 

Oal.App.(2d) 

Cald. 

CaU 

Calthr. 

CaLUnrep.Cas. 

Cam.Cas. 

Campb. 

Canal  Zone 

Can.App.Cas. 

Can.Cr.Cas. 

Can.Exch. 

Cau.L.J. 

Can.LJ.N.S. 

Can.L.T.Occ. 

Notes 
Can.R.Cas. 
Can.S.C. 
Canc&L. 

Car.&K. 

Car.&M. 

Car.&P. 

Car.H.&A. 

Carp.P.O. 

Carter 

Garth. 

Cartwr.Cas. 

Gary 

Cas. 

Cas.tHardw. 

Cas.t.Holt 

Oas.tKing 

Gas.tTalb. 

O.B. 

C.B.N.S. 

C.O.A. 

O.O.PJL 

C«ntr.LJ. 

ri891]  Ch. 

Ghamb.Rcp. 

Chandl 

Charlt.R.M. 

Charlt.T.UJP. 

Chase 

Ch.0as. 

Ch.Chamb. 

CLOoLOp. 

Ch.D. 

GhestOo. 

Chev. 

Chit. 

Ohoyce  Cas.Ch, 

Oh.Rcp. 

Oh.Sent. 

Cinc.L.BuL 

Cinc.Super. 

City  Ct.R. 
City  Hall  Rec. 


._., 

Burrows  (Eng.) 
Burrows'  Settlement  Gas.  (Eng.) 
Busbee  (N.C.) 
Busbee  Equity  (N.O.) 
Bush  (Ky.) 

Butterworth's  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion Cases  (Eng.) 


Oababe  &  Ellis  (Eng.) 

Games  (N.Y.) 

Games'  Cases  (N.Y.) 

California 

California  Reports,  Second  Series 

California  Appellate  Court 

California  Appellate  Reports,  Second 

Series 

Oaldecott  (Eng.) 
Call  (Va.) 
Calthrop  (Eng.) 
California  Uureported  Gases 
Cameron's  Gases  (Can.) 
Campbell  (Eng.) 
Canal  Zone  Supreme  Court 
Canadian  Appeal  Canes 
Canadian  Criminal  Coses 
Canadian  Exchequer 
Canada  Law  Journal 
Canada  Law  Journal  New  Serios 

Canadian  Law  Times  Occasional  Notes 

Canadian  Railway  Cases 

Canada  Supremo  Court 

Cane  &  Leigh  Crown  Cases  Reserved 

(Eng.) 

Carrington  &  Kirwan  (Bng.) 
Garrington  &  Marshman  (Eng.) 
Carrington  &  Payne  (Eng.) 
Carrow,  Hamcrton  &  Allen  (Eng.) 
Carpmacl  Patent  Gases  (Eng.) 
Carter  (Eng.) 
Oarthew  (Eng^) 
Oartwritfht's  Gases  (Can.) 
Gary  (lOng.) 
Casey  (Pa.) 

Gases  temp.  Hardwickc  (Eng.) 
Gases  tcrnp.  Molt  (Eng.) 
Cases  temp.  King  (En#.) 
Oases  temp.  Talbot  (Eng.) 
Common  Bench  (Manning,  Granger  & 

Scott)  (Eng.) 
Common  Bench  New  Series  (Manning, 

Granger  &  Scott  New  Series)  (Eng.) 
Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  (U.S.) 
Court  of  Customs  and 
Central  Law  Journal 
LAW  Reports  [1801]  Chancery  (Eng.) 
Chamber  (Ont.) 
Chandler  (Wis.) 
R.  M.  Gharlton  (Ga.) 
T.  U.  P.  Charlton  (Ga.) 
Chase  (U.S.) 
Gases  in  Chancery  (Eng.) 
Chancery  Chambers  (U.C.) 
Chalmers'  Colonial  Opinions 
Law     Reports     Chancery     Division 

(Eng.) 

Chester  County  (Pa.) 
Cheves  (S.O.) 
Chitty  (Eng.) 

Ghoyce  Oases  in  Ohancery  (Eng.) 
Chancery  Reports  (En#.) 
Chancery  Sentinel  (N.Y.) 
Weekly  Law  Bulletin  (Oh.) 
Cincinnati  Superior  Court  Reporter 

(Oh.) 

City  Court  Reports  (N.Y.) 
City  Hall  Recorder  (N.Y.) 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


Civ.ProoRep* 
C.J. 


C.J.S. 

C.&K. 

0.&L. 

CLApp< 

CLChT 

Clark  &F. 

Clark  &Fin,N.S. 

Clarke  

Clarke  &S.Dr.Cas.Clarke    & 

_(0nt.) 
Clarke  Ch. 
Clayt. 

C.L.Chamb. 

Glev.L.Rec. 

Clev.L.Rep. 

C1.&F. 

Clif.El.Cas. 

Cliff. 

C.L.R. 

C.&M. 

C.M.&R. 

Cockf&Rowe. 

Code  Rep. 

Code  Rep.N.S. 

Coff.Prob. 

Co.Inst. 

Coke 

CoLOas. 

CoL&O.Cas. 

Ool.C.O. 

Coldw. 

ColL 

CoLLJtep. 

GoLLaw  Review 

Coll.&E.Bank. 


Civil  Procedure  Reports  (N.Y.) 

Corpus  Juris 

Corpus  Juris  Annotations 

Corpus  Juris  Secundum 

Carrington  &  BSrwan  (Eng.) 

Connor  &  Lawson  (Ir.V 

Clark's  Appeal  Cases  (Eng.) 

Clarke's  Chancery  (N.Y.) 

Clark  &  Finnelly  (Eng.) 

Clark's  House  of  Lords  Cases  (Eng.) 

Clarke's  Chancery  (N.Y.) 

"    "       ~    Scully's   Drainage   Cases 


Colles 

Colo. 

Colo.App- 

Colq. 

Coltm. 

Comb. 

Com.Cas. 

Com.L. 

Gomptr.Treas. 

Dec. 
Comst 
Comyns 
Comyns  Dig1. 
Con.&Law. 
Conf. 
Conn. 
Conn.Surr. 
Const 
Cooke 
Cooke 
Cooke  &  A. 
Cook  Vice-Adm. 
Coop. 

Coop.Pr.Cas. 
Coop.tJBrough. 

Coop.tXJott. 

Coop.t.EHd. 

Co.P.0. 

Corb.&D. 

Court&MacL 

Cow. 

GowXJr-Rep. 

Cowp. 

Cox.Am.T.M.Cas. 

Cox  C.O. 

Cox  Oh. 

Cox  &Atk. 

G.&P. 

C.P.O. 

C.P.D. 


Clarke's  Chancery  (N.Y.) 

Clayton's     Reports,     York' 
(Eng.) 

Chamber's  Common  Law  (U.C.) 

Cleveland  Law  Record  (Oh.) 

Cleveland  Law  Reporter  (Oh.) 

Clark  &  Finnelly  (Eng.) 

Clifford's  Southwick  Election  Cases 

Clifford  (U.S.) 

Common  Law  Reports  (Eng.) 

Carrington  &  Marshman  (Eng.) 

Crompton,  Meeson  &  Roscoe  (Eng.) 

Cockburn  &  Rowe's  Election  Cases 

Code  Reporter  (N.Y.) 

Code  Reports  New  Series  (N.Y.) 

Coffey's  Probate  (CaL) 

Coke's  Institutes 

Coke  (Eng.) 

Coleman's  Cases  (N.Y.) 

Coleman  &  Caines'  Cases  (N.Y.) 

Collyer's  Chancery  Cases  (Eng.) 

Coldwell  (Tenn.) 

Collyer  (Eng.) 

Colorado  Law  Reporter 

Columbia  Law  Review 

Collier  and  Eaton's  American  Bank- 
ruptcy Reports 

OoUes*  Cases  in  Parliament  (Eng.) 

Colorado 

Colorado  Appeals 

Colquit 

Coltman  (Eng.) 

Comberbach  (Eng.) 

Commercial  Cases  (Eng.) 

Commercial  Law  (Can.) 

Comptroller  Treasury  Decisions 

Comstock  (N.Y.) 

Comyns  (Eng.) 

Comyns  Digest  (Eng.) 

Connor  &  Lawson  (Ir.) 

Conference  Reports  (N.C.) 

Connecticut 

Connolly's  Surrogate  (N.Y.V 

Constitutional  Reports  (N.C.) 

Cooke  (Eng.) 

Cooke  (Tenn.) 

Cooke  &  Alcock  (Ir.) 

Cook's  Vice-Admiralty  (L.C.) 

Cooper's  Chancery  (Eng.) 

Cooper's  Practice  Cases  (Eng.) 

Cooper's     Cases     temp.     Brougham 

(Eng.) 
Cooper's     Cases    temp.    Cottenham 

(Bng.) 

Cooper's  Cases  tempore  Eldon  (Eng.) 
Coke's  Reports  (Eng.) 
Corbett  &  DanielTs  Election 

(Eng.) 

Courtnay  &  Maclean  (Sc.) 
Cowen  (N.Y.) 
Cowen's  Criminal  (N.Y.) 
Cowper  (Eng.) 

Cox's  American  Trade-Mark  Cases 
Cox's  Criminal  Cases  (Eng.) 
Cox's  Chancery  (Bng,) 


Law  Reports  Common  Pleas  Division 
(Eng.) 


Orabbe 
Cranch 
Cranch  C.C. 
Cranch  PatDec* 
Cr^pp. 
Crawf.&D. 
Crawf.&DAbr* 
Cas. 

Cripp's  Ch.Cas. 

Cr.LMag. 

Cr.&Ph/ 


Cro.Car. 
Cro.Eliz. 
Cro.Jac. 

Cromp.&J. 
Cromp.&M. 
Crosw.Pat.Cas* 

Cr.&Ph. 

CtOL 

Ct.Cust.&Pat 

App. 
Cunn. 
Curt 
Curt.EccL 
Gush. 
Cust^A. 
Cyc. 


Dak. 
DaLQP* 
Dall, 
DalL 


Daly 

Dan. 

Dana 

Dane  Abr. 

Dans.&L. 

D'Anv.Abr. 

Dauph.Co, 

Dav.&M. 

Davys 


D.B.&M. 
D.C. 

D.Chipm. 
Deac. 
Deac.&O. 
Deady 
Dears.&B. 
Dears.C.C. 
Deas  &  A. 
De  Gex 
De  G.F.&J. 
De  G.J.&S. 
De  G.&J. 
De  GJtf.&G. 

De  a&Sm. 

Del. 

Del.Cn. 

Del.0o. 

Dem.Surr. 

Den!c.C. 

Desans.Bq. 

Dev.CtCL 

Dev.L. 

Dev.&BaL 

Dick. 

Dill. 

DirLDec. 

Disn. 


Crabbe  (U.S.) 

Cranch  (U.S.) 

Cranch's  Circuit  Court  (U.S.) 

Cranch's  Patent  Decisions  (U.S.) 

Criminal  Appeals   (Eng.) 

Crawford  &  Dix.Or.) 

Crawford   &  Dix's   Abridged   Case 


Crippfs  Church  and  Clergy  Cases 
Criminal  Law  Magazine 
Craig  &  Phillips  (Eng.) 
Christopher     Robinson's     Admiralt; 

(Eng.) 

Croke  Charles  (Eng.) 
Croke  Elizabeth   (Eng.) 
Croke's  Reports  tempore  James  (Ja 

cobus)  (Eng.) 
Crompton  &  Jervis  (Eng.) 
Crompton  &  Meesou  (Eng.) 
Croswell's  Collection  of  Patent  Case 

(U.S.) 

Craig  &  Phillips  (Eng.) 
Court  of  Claims  (U.S.) 

Court  of  Customs  and  Patent  Appeal 
Cunningham  (Eng.) 
Curtis   (U.S.) 

Curteis  Ecclesiastical  (Eng.) 
Gushing  (Mass.) 
United  States  Customs  Appeals 
Cyclopedia  of  Law  &  Procedure 
Cyclopedia  of  Law  &  Procedure  As 
notations 


D 

Dakota 

Dalison's  Common  Pleas   (Eng.) 

Dallaman's  Decisions  (Tex.) 

Dallas  (Pa.) 

Dallas  (U.S.) 

Dalrymple's  Decisions  (Sc.) 

Daly  (N.Y.) 

Daniell  (Eng.) 

Dana  (Ky.) 

Dane's  Abridgment 

Danson  &  Lloyd  (Eng.) 

D'Anver's  Abridgment  (Eng.) 

Dauphin  County  (Pa.) 

Davison  &  Merivale  (Eng.) 

Davys  (Ir.) 

Day  (Conn.) 

Dunlop,  Bell  &  Murray  (Sc.) 

District  of  Columbia 

D.  Chipman  (Vt) 

Deacon  (Eng.) 

Deacon  &  Chitty  (Eng.) 

Deady  (U.S.) 

Dearsley  &  Bell  (Eng.) 

Dearsley's  Crown  Cases  (Eng.) 

Deas  &  Anderson  (Eng.) 

De  Gex  (Eng.) 

De  Gex,  Fisher  &  Jones  (IBng.) 

De  Gex,  Jones  &  Smith  (Eng.) 

De  Gex  &  Jones  (Eng.) 

De    Gex.    MacNaghten    &    Gordo 

(Eng.) 

De  Gex  &  Smale  (Eng.)j 
Delaware 

Delaware  Chancery 
Delaware  County  (Pa.) 
Demarest's  Surrogate  (N.Y.) 
Denio  (N.Y.) 

Denison's  Crown  Cases  (Eng.) 
Desaussure  (S.O.) 
Devereux's  Court  of  Claims  (U.S.) 
Devereux  (N.C.) 
Devereux  &  Battle  (N.C.) 
Dickens  (Sc.) 
Dillon  (U.S.) 
Dirleton's  Decisions  (Sc.) 
Disney  (Oh.) 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


D.&L, 

Dods. 

Dom.L.R. 

Donnelly 

Dorion 

DougL 

Dougl. 

DougLELCas. 

Dow 

Dow&  OL 

Dow.&L. 

Dow.N.S. 

DowL 

Dowl.P.0. 
DowlJP.C.N.S. 

D.&R. 

Draper 

Drew. 

Drinkw. 

D.&R.Mag.Cas. 

D.&R.N.P. 

Dr.&Sm. 

Drury 

Dr.£WaL 

Dr.&War. 

D.&SW* 

Dud.Eq. 

DudL 

Duet 

Dunl.B.&M. 

Dunlop 

Dunn, 

Durie 

Durn.&E. 

Duv. 

Dyer 


East 

East.L.R. 

East  P.O. 

East.T. 

E.&B. 

E.B.&E. 

E.B.&S. 

E.O.L. 

Eden 

Edgar 

Edm.Sel.Oas. 

E.  D.  Smith 

Bdw. 

Edw. 

Edw.Abr. 

Edw.Adm. 
E.&E. 
Enc.Pl.&Pr. 
Ency.Law. 

Eng.Ad. 

Eng.C.O. 

Eng.Ch. 

Eng.Ecd. 

Eng.Ecc.R. 

Eng.Exch. 

Eng.L.&Eq. 

Eng.Eep.R. 

Eng.Ry.&O.Oas. 

Eng.&Ir.App. 

Eq.Oas.Abr. 

Eq.Rep. 

E.R.O. 


Dowling  £  Lowndes  (Eng.) 

Dodson's  Admiralty  (Eng.) 

Dominion  Law  Reports  (Can.) 

Donnelly  (Eng.) 

Dorion  (L.C.) 

Douglas  (Eng.) 

Douglass  (Mich.) 

Douglas'  Election  Cases  (Eng.) 

Dow  (Eng.) 

Dow  £  Clark  (Eng.) 

Dowling  £  Lowndes   (Eng.) 

Dowling.  New  Series  (Eng.) 

Dowlinrs  English  Bail  Court  (Prac 

tice)  Cases 

Dowling's  Practice  Cases  (Eng.) 
Dowling's  Practice  Cases  New  Series 

(Eng.) 

Dowling  £  Ryland  (Eng.) 
Draper  (U.C.) 
Drewry  (Eng.) 
Drinkwater  (Eng.) 
Dowling  £  Ryland's  Magistrate  Oases 

(Eng.) 

Dowling  &  Ryland's  Nisi  Prius  (Eng.) 
Drewry  £  Smale  (Eng.) 


Drury  (Ir.) 

Drury  £  Walsh  (Ir.) 

Drury  £  Warren  (Ir.) 


Deane  &  Swabey  (Eng.) 

Dudley  (S.O.) 

Dudley  (Ga.) 

Duer's  Superior  Oourt  (N.Y.) 

Dunlop,  Bell  &  Murray  (Sc.) 

Dunlop  (Sc.) 

Dunning  (Eng.) 

Durie  (Sc.) 

Durnford  £  East  (Eng.) 

Duvall  (Ky.) 

Dyer  (Eng.) 


E 

East  (Eng.) 

Eastern  Law  Reporter  (Can.) 

East's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  (Eng.) 

Eastern  Term  (Eng.) 

Ellis  £  Blackburn  (Eng.) 

Ellis,  Blackburn  &  Ellis  (Eng.) 

Ellis,  Best  £  Smith  (Eng.) 

English  Common  Law 

Eden  (Eng.) 

Edgar  (Sc.) 

Edmond's  Select  Oases  (N.Y.) 

E.  D.  Smith  (N.Y.) 

Edwards  (Eng.) 

Edwards'  Chancery  (N.Y.) 

Edwards'  Abridgment  of  Prerogative 

Court  Cases 

Edwards'  Admiralty  (Eng.) 
Elk's  £  Ellis  (Eng.) 
Encyclopedia  of  Pleading  &  Practice 
American  and  English  Encyclopaedia  of 

Law 

English  Admiralty 
English  Crown  Cases 
English  Chancery 
English  Ecclesiastical  Reports 
English  Ecclesiastical  Reports 
English  Exchequer  Reports 
English  LaV  &  Equity 
English  Reports,  Full  Reprint 
English  Railway  and  Canfel  Cases 
Law  Reports,  English  and  Irish  Appeal 


Euer 
Exch.  - 
Exch.Cas. 


Equity  Cases  Abridged  (Eng.) 
Equity  Reports  (Eng.) 
English  Ruling  Cases 
Espinasse's  Nisi  Prius  (Eng.) 
Euer  (Eng.) 
Exchequer  (Eng.) 
Exchequer  Oases  (Sc.) 


Ex.D. 
Eyre. 


Falc. 

Falc.&F. 

Far. 

F.Cas.No. 

F.(CtSess.) 

F. 

F.f2d) 

F.R.D. 

F.Supp. 

Ferg.Cons. 

F.&F. 

Fish.Pat.Cas. 

Fish.Pat.R. 

Fish.PmeCas. 

Fitzg. 

Fitzh. 

Fitzh.N.Br. 

Fla, 

Flipp. 

F1.&K. 

Fonb.Eq. 

Fonbl. 

Fonbl.R. 

Forbes 

Forr. 

Forrester 

Fortesc. 

Fost 

Fost. 

Fost&Fin. 

FountDec, 

Fox 

Fox  &  S. 

Freem. 

Freem. 

Frecm.K.B. 


Ga. 

Ga.App. 

Ga.Dec. 

Gale 

Gal. 

G.Ooop. 

G.&D. 

GehL&M. 

Gibb.Surr. 

Giffard 

Giff.&H. 

Gil. 

Gilb. 

Gilb.Cas. 

Gilb.C.P. 

Gilb.Exch. 

GUI 

Gffl&T. 

Gilm. 

Gilm.&Falc. 

Gilp. 

Glasc. 

Gljm&J. 

Godb. 

Godo. 

Goeb. 

Gosf. 

Gouldsb. 

Gow 

Gow  N.P. 

Grant 

Srant  Oh. 

Grant  Err.&App. 

Gratt 

Gray 


Law    Reports    Exchequer    Division 

(Eng.) 
Eyre's  Reports  (Eng.) 

F 

Falconer's  Court  of  Sessions  (Sc.) 

Falconer  &  Fitzherbert  (Eng.) 

Farresley  (Eng.) 

Federal  Cases  (U.S.) 

Fraser's  Court  of  Sessions  Cases  (Sc.) 

Federal  Reporter  (U.S.) 

Federal  Reporter  Second  Series 

Federal  Rules  Decisions 

Federal  Supplement 

Ferguson's  Consistory  (Eng.) 

Foster  &  Finlason  (Eng.) 

Fisher's  Patent  Cases  (U.S.) 

Fisher's  Patent  Reports  (U.S.) 

Fisher's  Prize  Cases  (U.S.) 

Fitzgfbbon  (Eng.) 

Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  (Eng.) 

Fitzherberf  s  Natura  Brevium .  (Eng.) 

Florida 

Flippin  (U.S.) 

Flanagan  &  Kelly  (Ir.) 

Fonblanque's  Equity  (Eng.) 

Fonblanque  (Eng.) 

Fonblanque's  English  Cases 

Forbes  (Eng.) 

Forrest  (Eng.) 

Forrester's  Cases  (Eng.) 

Fortescue  (Eng.) 

Foster  (Eng.) 

Foster  (N.H.) 

Foster  &  Finlason  (Eng.) 

FountainhalTs  Decisions  (Sc.) 

Fox  Reports  (Eng.) 

Fox  &  Smith  (Ir.) 

Freeman's  Chancery  (Eng.) 

Freeman's  Chancery  (Miss.) 

Freeman's  King's  Bench  (Eng.) 

G 

Georgia 

Georgia  Appeals 

Georgia  Decisions 

Gale  (Eng.) 

Gallison  (U.S.) 

G.  Cooper  (Eng.) 

Gale  &  Davidson  (Eng.) 

Geldart  &  Maddock  (Eng  ~ 

Gibbon's  Surrogate  (N.3 

Giffard  (Eng.) 

Giffard  and  Hemming  (Eng.) 

Gilfillan's  Edition  (Minu.) 

Gilbert's  (Eng.) 

Gilbert's  Cases  (Eng.) 

Gilbert's  Common  Pleas  (Eng.) 

Gilbert's  Exchequer  (Eng.) 

Gill  (Md.) 

GUI  &  Johnson  (Md.) 

Gilmer  (Va.) 

Gilmour  &  Falconer  (Sc.) 

Gilpin  (U.S.) 

Glascock  (Ir.) 

Glyn  &  Jameson  (Eng,) 

Godbolt  (Eng.) 

Godolphin's  Abridgment  of  Ecclcsias* 

Goebel's  Probate  Court  Oases 
Gosford  (Eng.) 
Gouldsborough  (Eng.) 
Gow  (Eng.)' 

Gow's  English  Nisi  Prius  Cases 
Grant's  Cases  (Pa.) 
Grant's  Chancery  (U.O.) 
Grant's  Error  &  Appeal  (U.C.) 
Grattan  (Va.) 
Gray  (Mass.) 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


Green  Or. 

Greene 

GwilLT.Cas. 


Hadd. 

Hagg.Adm. 

Hagg.Cons. 

Hagg.EccL 

Hailes  Bee. 

Hale      J 

Hale  Ecc. 

Hale  P.C. 

Hall 

Hall&T. 

Halsbury  L.Eng. 

Handy 

Han.(NJB.) 

Hard. 

Hardres 

Hare 

Harp.Eq. 

Harr. 

Harr.fDeL) 

Harr.  (Mich.), 

Harr.&G. 

Harr.Oh. 

Harr.&H. 

Harr.&J. 

Harr.&M. 

Harr.&B. 

Harr.&W. 

Hask.    . 

HaviL 

Hawaii 

HawaiLFed. 

Hawaiian  Hep. 

Hawk.P.O. 

Hay.Exch. 

Hayes    • 

Hayes&J. 

Hay&M. 

Hayw.- 


^ 
Hayw.&H. 

Haz.Beg. 

H.B1. 

H.&0. 

Head 

Heisk. 

Hem.&M. 

Hempst 

Hen.&M. 

Het. 

Het.C.P. 

H.&H. 

HiU 

HiU  S.C. 

Hill  &Den.     % 

Hill  &Den.  Supp. 


WIT. 

H.L.Cas. 

H.&N. 

Hob. 

Hodg.ESL 

Hocfees 

Uoffm. 

H-offm.Land  Gas. 

Ho*. 

Holmes 

golt  Adm.Oas. 
olt  Bq. 
Holt  K.B. 
Holt  N.P. 
Home 
Hope  Dec. 
Hopk. 
Hopk.Dec. 


Green's  Criminal  Law  (Eng.) 

Greene  (Iowa) 

Gwillim's  Tithe  Cases  (Eng.) 


Hac 

Haggard's  Admiralty  (Eng.) 
Haggard's  Consistory  (Eng.) 
Haggard's  Ecclesiastical  (Bng.) 
Hailes'  Decisions  (Sc.) 
Hale's  Common  Law  (Eng.) 
Hale's   Ecclesiastical    (Eng.) 
Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown  (Eng.) 
Hall's  Superior  Court  (N.Y.) 
Hall  &  TweUs  (Eng.) 
Halsbury's  Law  of  England 
Handy  (Oh.) 

Hannay's  Beports,  New  Brunswick 
Hardin  (Ky.) 
Hardres  (Eng.) 
Hare  (Eng.) 
Harper  (S.C.) 

Harrison's  Chancery  (Mich.) 
Harrington  (DeL) 

Harrington's  Michigan  Chancery  Be- 
ports 

Harris  &  Gill  (Md.) 
Harrison's  Chancery  (Eng.) 
Harrison  &  Hodgins  (U.C.) 
Harris  &  Johnson  (Md.) 
Harris  &  McHenry  (Md.) 
Harrison  &  Butherford  (Eng.) 
Harrison  &  Wollaston  (Eng.) 
HaskeU  (U.S.) 
Haviland  (PrJSdwJsL) 
Hawaiian 
Hawaiian  Federal 
Hawaii  Beports 

Hawkins*  Pleas  of  the  Crown  (Eng.) 
Hayes  Exchequer  (Ir.) 
Hayes  (Ir.) 
Hayes  &  Jones  (Ir.) 
Hay  &  Marriott  (Eng.) 
Haywood  (N.C.) 

Haywood  &  Hazelton  (U.S.) 

Hazard's  Register  (Pa.) 

Henry  Blackstone   (Eng.) 

Hurlstone  &  Coltman  (Eng.)  , 

Head  (Tenn.) 

HeiskeU  (Tenn.) 

Hemming  &  Miller  (Eng.) 

Hempstead  (U.S.) 

Henning  &  Munf ord  (Va.) 

Hetley  (Eng.) 

Hetley'e  Common  Pleas  (Eng.) . 

Horn  &  Hurlstone  (Eng.) 

HiU  (N.Y.) 

HiU  (S.C.) 

Hill  &  Denio  (N.Y.) 

Lalor's  Supplement  to  HOI  &  Denio's 

(N.Y.) 

Hilton  (N.Y.) 
HUaryTerm  (Eng.)      f^ 
House  of  Lords  Cases  (Eng.) 
Hurlstone  &  Norman  (Eng.) 
Hobart  (Eng.) 
Hodgins'  Election  (U.C.) 
Hodges  (Eng.)          ,-T_v 
Hoffman's  Chancery  (N.Y.) 
Hoffman's  Land  Cases  (U.S.) 
Hogan  (Ir.) 

Holmes  (U.S.)          .    ,      _. 
Holt's  English  Admiralty  Cases 

Holt's  King's  Bench  (Eng.) 
Holf  s  Nisi  Prius  (Eng.) 
Home  (Sa\  .  . 

Hope's  Decisions  (Sc.) 
Hopkins'  Chancery  (N.Y.) 
Hopkins'  Decisions  (Pa.) 


Hopw.&C.  Hopwood  &  Coltman  (Eng.) 

Hopw.&P.  Hopwood  &  Philbrick  (Eng.) 

Hosea  Hosea  (Ohio) 

Houst.  Houston  (DeL) 

Houst.Cr.  Houston's  Criminal  Cases  (DeL) 

How.  Howard  (U.S.) 

How.  (Miss.)  Howard  (Miss.) 

HowA.Cas.  Howard's  Appeal  Cases  (N.Y.) 

How.N.P.  HoweU's  Nisi  Prius  (Mich.) 

How.Pr.  Howard's  Practice  (N.Y.) 

How.Pr.N.&   .        Howard's  Practice  New  Series  (N.Y.) 

How.St.Tr.  HoweU's  State  Trials  (Eng.) 

Hud.&B.  Hudson  &  Brooke  (Ir.) 

Hughes  Hughes  (Ky.) 

Hughes  Hughes  (U.S.) 

Hume  Hume's  Decisions  (Sc.) 

Humphr.  Humphreys  (Tenn.) 

Hun  Hun  (N1Y.) 

Hurl.&Gord.  Hurlstoue  &  Gordon  (Eng.) 

HurL&W.  Hurlstone  &  Walmsley  (Eng.) 

Hutt.  Hutton  (Eng.) 


Idaho  Idaho 

Iddings  DJU).  Iddings  Dayton  Term  Beports 

HI.  Illinois 

IU.App.  Illinois  Appellate  Court 

El.Cfr.  lUinois  Circuit  Court 

Ind.  Indiana 

Ind.App.  Indiana  AppeUate  Court 

Ind.T.  Indian  Territory 

Jns.L.J.  Insurance  Law  Journal 

Int.Com.Commn.    Interstate  Commerce  Commission 

Int.ComJElep.  Interstate  Commerce  Beports 

Int.Rev.Rec.  Internal  Revenue  Record 

Iowa  Iowa 

[1891]  Ir.  Law  Beports  [1891]  Irish 

Ir.Ch.  Irish  Chancery 

Ir.C.L.  Irish  Common  Law 

Ir.EccL  Irish  Ecclesiastical  Beports 

Ired.  IredeU  (N.C.) 

Ir.Eq.  Irish  Equily 

Ir.LawBep.  Irish  Law  Reports 

IrXaw  &Eq.  Irish  Law  and  Equity  Beports 

Ir.B.1894.  Irish  Law  Beports  for  year  1894 

Ir.R.Clx  Irish  Beports  Common  Law 

Ir.R.Eq.  Irish  Beports  Equity 

Irv.Just.  Irvine's  Justiciary  Cases  (Eng.) 


Jae.  Jacob  (Eng.) 

Jac.&W.  Jacob  &  Walker  (Bng.) 

J.Bridgm.  John  Bridgman  (Eng.) 

J.&G.  Jones  &  Carey  (Ir.) 

Jebb  &B.  Jebb  &  Bourke  (Ir.) 

Jebb  O.C.  Jebb's  Crown  Cases  (Ir.) 

Jebb&S.  Jebb  &  Symes  (Ir.) 

Jeff.  Jefferson  (Va.) 

Jenk.  Jenkins  (Eng.) 

J.J.Marsh,  J.  J.  ^rshaU  (%•) 

J.&L.  Jones  &  La  Touche  (Eng.) 

Johns.  Johnson  (Eng.) 

Johns.  Johnson  (N.Y.) 

Johns.Cas.  Johnson's  Cases  (N.Y.) 

Johns.0h.  Johnsonfs  Chancery  (N.Y.)  * 

Johns.V.C.  Johnson's    English    Vice-ChanceUors 

(Eng.) 

Johns.&H.  Johnson  &  Hemming  (Eng.) 

Jones  Exch.  Jones  Exchequer  (Ir.) 

Jones  T.  Sir   Thomas   Jones'   English   King's 

Bench  Beports 

Jones  W.  Sir   William    Jones'    English   Kong's 

Bench  Beports 

Jones&Spen.  Jones  &  Spencer  (N.Y.) 

Jcmrn.Jur.  Journal  of  Jurisprudence  (Pa.) 

JP.  Justice  of  Peace  (Eng.) 

Jur.  Jurist  <Eng.)   m 

Jur.N.S.  Jurist  New  Series  (Eng.) 

JustLJEL  Justices'  Law  Reporter  (Pa.) 


XIT 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


K 

Leigh  &0. 
Leon. 

Kames  Dec. 
Kames  Eluckt 

Kames'  Decisions  (Sc.) 
Kames'  Elucidation  (Sc.) 

Lev. 
Lew.C.C. 

Kames  Rem.Dee. 

Kames'  Remarkable  Decisions  (Sc.) 

T^? 

Kames  SeLDec. 
Kan. 

Kames'  Select  Decisions  (Sc.) 
Kansas 

Liberian  L. 

T  H-4- 

Kan.Appv 

Kansas  Appeals 

JLtltt. 

Jjitt. 

Kay 
Kay&J. 

[1917JK.B, 

Kay  (Eng.) 
Kay  &  Johnson  (Eng.) 
Law  Reports    [1917]    King's  Bench 

Litt.Sel.Cas, 
L.JAdm. 

Keane  &Gr. 

(Eng.) 
Keane  &  Grant  (Eng.) 

L.J.Bankr. 

Keb. 

Keble  (Eng.) 

L.J.Ch. 

Keen 

Keen  (Eng.) 

Keilw. 
Kel.C.C. 

Keilway  (Eng.) 
Kelvng's  Crown  Cases  (Eng.) 

L.J.Ch.O.S. 

Kelly 
Kelyng,  J. 

Kelly  (Ga.) 
Kelyng's  English  Crown  Cases 

LJ.C.P. 

Kelynge,  W» 

Kelynge's  Chancery  (Eng.) 

T  TP  PO  S 

Koyes 

Keyes  (N.Y.) 

ij.u  .  v.Jr.\j«O< 

Keyl. 
K.&G. 

Keilwey  (Eng.) 
Keane  &  Grant  (Eng.) 

L.J.EccL 

Kilk. 

Kilkerran's  Decisions  (Sc.) 

T,  T  TfJ'e/»h 

Kirby 

Kirby  (Conn.) 

JLf.w  .JKAl.ll. 

Knapp 
Knajjp&O. 

Knapp  (Eng.) 
Knapp  &  Ombler  (Eng.) 

L.J.Exch.O.S. 

Kn.&Moo. 

Knapp  &  Moore  (Eng.) 

L.J.K.B. 

Knox 

Knox  (N.S.Wales) 

Kiiox&F. 
Kiiip 

Knox  &  Fitzhardinge  (JXT-S.  Wales) 
Kulp  (Pa.) 

L.J.K.B.O.S. 

Ky. 

Kentucky 

L.J.H.O. 

Ky.Dea 

Kentucky  Decisions 

Ky.L. 
ICy.Op. 

Kentucky  Law  Reporter 
Kentucky  Opinions 

L.J.M.C.O.S. 

L.J.P.C. 

L 

L.J.P.D.&Adnu 

L.J.P.&M. 

La. 

Louisiana 

La.App. 
La.A.  (Orleans) 

Louisiana  Court  of  Appeals 
Court  of  Appeal,  Parish  of  Orleans 

L.J.Q.B. 

T^  Arm. 

Louisiana  Annual 

L.J.Hop. 

Lab. 

Labatf  s  District  Court  (Cal.) 

Lack.Jur. 

Lackawanna  Jurist  (Pa.) 

iji  &(},t.y. 

Lack.Leg.N. 

Lackawanna  Legal  News  (Pa.) 

U.&W. 

Lack.Leg.Ree. 

Lackawanna  Legal  Record  (Pa.) 

L.&M. 

Lalor 

Lalor's  Supplement  to  Hill  &  Denio 

L.M.iV^P. 

(N.Y.) 

IJOC.GOV. 

Lanc.Bar 

Lancaster  Bar  (Pa.) 

I^olTt 

Lanc.L.Rev. 

Lancaster  Law  Review  (Pa.) 

Longf.&T. 

Land  Dec. 

Land  Decisions  (U.S.) 

Low.Cttn.Seignu 

Lane 
Lans. 

Lane  (Eng.) 
Lansing  (N.Y.) 

Lowell 
L.R. 

Lans.Ch. 

Lansing's  Chancery  Decisions  (N.Y.) 

L.R.A. 

Latch 

Latch  (Eng.) 

L.R.A.1915A. 

Law  Rep.N.8. 

Law  Reports  New  Series  (N.Y.) 

L.R.App.Cas. 

L.O. 

Lower  Canada 

L.&C. 

Leigh  &  Cave  (Eng.) 

L.R.A.&E. 

L.C.Jur. 

Lower  Canada  Jurist 

L.C.L.J. 

Lower  Canada  Law  Journal 

L.R.A.N.S. 

L.C.Rep.S.QtL 

Lower    Canada    Reports    Seignorial 

Questions 

L.R.C.C. 

L.D. 

Law  Dictionary 

L.R.Ch. 

Ld.Ken. 

Lord  Kenyon  (Eng.) 

Ld.Raym. 

Lord  Raymond  (Eng.) 

L.R.C.P. 

Lea 

Lea  (Tenn.) 

Leach  0.0. 
LJEd. 

Leach's  Crown  Cases  (Eng.) 
Lawyers'     Edition     United     States 

L.R.Eq. 
L.R.Exch. 

Supreme  Court 

L.R.H.JU 

Lee  EccL 

Lee's  Ecclesiastical  (Eng.) 

Lee  tHardw. 
Lef.Dec. 

Lee  temp.  Hardwicke  (Eng.) 
Lefevre's     Parliamentary     Decisions 

L.R.H.L.SC. 

Leg.Chron. 

(Eng.) 
Legal  Chronicle  (Pa.) 

L.R.Indian  App. 
L.R.Ir. 

Leg.Gaz. 

Legal  Gazette  (Pa.V 

L.R.P.O. 

Leg.&InsJR. 
LegJnt 
Leg.Op. 
Leg.Rec. 

Legal  &  Insurance  Reporter  (Pa.) 
Legal  Intelligencer  (Pa.) 
Legal  Opinions  (Pa.) 
Legal  Record  (Pa.) 

L.R.P.&D, 
L.R.Q.B. 

Lehigh  CO.LJ. 

Lehigh  County  Law  Journal  (Pa.) 

j.T. 

Lehigh  VaLLJEL 

Lehigh  Valley  Law  Exporter  (Pa.) 
Leigh  (Va.) 

iT.ols! 

Leigh  &  Cave's  English  Crown  Cases 

Leonard  (Eng.) 

Levinz  (Eng.) 

Lewin's  Crown  Cases  (Eng.) 

Ley  (Eng.) 

Law  Glossary 

Liberian  Law 

Littell  (Ky.) 

Littleton  (Eng.) 

Littell's  Select  Cases  (Ky,) 

Law  Journal  Admiralty  New  Series 


Law  Journal  Bankruptcy  New  Series 

(Eng.) 
Law  Journal   Chancery  New   Series 


(Eng.) 
Law   Journal 


Old    Series 


Chancery 

(Eng.) 
Law    Journal    Common   Pleas    New 

Series  (Eng.) 
Law    Journal    Common    Picas    Old 

Series  (Eng.) 
Law  Journal  JEcclesiastical  New  Series 


Law  Journal  Exchequer  New  Scries 

(Bng.) 
Law  Journal  Exchequer  Old  Series 

(Eng.) 
Law  Journal  King's  Bench  New  Series 

(Eng.) 
Law  Journal  King's  Bench  Old  Series 

(Eng.) 
Law  Journal  Magistrate  Cases  New 

Series  (Eng.) 
Law  Journal  Magistrate   Cases   Old 

Series  (Eng.) 
Law  Journal  Privy  Council  New  Series 

(Eng.) 
Law  Journal  Probate  Divorce  &  Ad- 

miralty  New  Series  (Jdng.) 
Law  Journal  Probate  &  Matrimonial 

New  Series  (Eng.) 
Law    Journal    Queen's    Bench    New 

Series  (Eng.) 

Law  Journal  Reports  (Eng.) 
Llo3rd  &  Goold  temp.  Plunket  (Ir.) 
Lloyd  &  Goold  temp.  Sugden  (Ir.) 
Lloyd  &  Welsby  (Eng.) 
Lowndes  &  Maxwell  (Eng.) 
Lowndes,  Maxwell  &  Pollack  (Eng.) 
Local  Government  (Eng.) 
Loffit  (Eng.) 

Longfield  &  Townsend  (Ir.) 
Lower  Canada  Seignorial  Reports 
Lowell  (U.S.) 
Law  Reports  (U.S.) 
Lawyers'  Reports  Annotated 
Lawyers'  Reports  Annotated  1015A 
English  Law  Reports,  Appeal  Cases 

Law  Reports  Admiralty  &  Ecclesias- 
tical (Ens.) 
Lawyers'    Reports    Annotated    New 

Series 

Law  Reports  Crown  Cases  (Hng.) 
Law  Reports  Chancery  Appeal  Cases 

(Eng.) 
Law  Reports  Common  Pleas  Cases 

(Eng.) 

Law  Reports  Equity  Casos  (Eng.) 
Law  Reports  Exchequer  Cases  "(Hug.) 
Law  Reports  House  of  Lords  (English 

&  Irish  Appeal  Cases) 
Law  Reports  House  of  Lords  (Scotch 

Appeal  Cases) 

Law  Reports  Indian  Appeals  (Eng.) 
Law  Reports  Irish 
Law  Reports  Privy  Council  (Eng.) 
Law    Reports    Probate    &    Divorce 

(Eng.) 
Law  Reports  Queen's  Bench  Oases 

(Eng.) 

Law  Times  (Pa.) 
Law  Times  New  Series  (Pa.) 
Law  Times,  Old  Series  (Eng.) 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


xni 


L.T.Rep.N.S.  Law    Times    Reports    New    Series 

(Bng.) 

Lush.  Lushington's  Admiralty  (Eng.) 

Lutw.  Lutwyche  (Bng.) 

Lutw.Reg.Oas.  Lutwyche's  Registration  Oases  (Eng.) 

Luz.Leg.Obs.  Luzerne  Legal  Observer  (Pa.) 

Luz.Leg.Reg.  Luzerne  Legal  Register  (Pa.) 

LyndJProv.  Lyndwood's  Provinciates 

M 

MacAPatOas.  MacArthur's  Patent  Cases  (D.O.) 

MacArth.  MacArthur's  District  of  Columbia  Re- 
ports 

MacAr.&M.  MacArthur  &  Mackey's  District  of  Co- 
lumbia Reports 

Maccl.  Macclesfield  (Bng.) 

MacFarL  MacFarlane  (Sc.) 

Mackey  Mackey's  Reports,  District  of  Colum- 
bia 

MacL&R.  Maclean  &  Robinson  (Bng.) 

Macn.&G.  Macnaghten  &  Gordon  (Eng.) 

Macph.  Macpherson  (Sc.) 

Macph.S.&L,  Macpherson,  Shirreff  &  Lee  (Sc.) 

Macq.  Macqueen's  Scotch  Appeal  Cases 

Madd.  Haddock  (Eng.) 

Madd.Ch.Pt.  Maddock's  Chancery  Practice  (Eng.) 

Malloy  Malloy  (Ir.) 

Man.  Manitoba  Law 

Man.El.Cas.  Manning's  Election  Cases  (Eng.) 

Man.Exch.Pr.  Manning's  Exchequer  Practice  (Eng.) 

Man.Gr.&S.  Manning,  Granger,  &  Scott  (Eng.) 

ManX.J.  Manitoba  Law  Journal 

Man.&Ry.  Manning  &  Ryland  (Eng.) 

Man.&Ry.Mag.  Manning  &  Ryland's  Magistrates'  Gas- 
Cas.  es  (Eng.) 

Man.&S.  Manning  &  Scott  (Bng.) 

Mann.Unrep.Oas.    Manning's  Unreported  Cases  (La.) 

Manson  Manson  (Bng.) 

Man.tWood  Manitoba  temp.  Wood 

March  March  (Bng.) 

Mar.Prov.  Maritime  Province  Reports  (Can.) 

Mars.Adm.  Marsden's  Admiralty  (Bng.) 

Marsh.  Marshall  (Bng.) 

MarshJ.J.  J.  J.  Marshall  (Ky.) 

Mart  Martin  Old  Series   (La.) 

Mart(N.S.)  Martin,  New  Series  (La.) 

Mart  Martin  (N.C.) 

Marv.  Marvel  (Deli 

MartN.S.  Martin  New  Series  (La.) 

Mart&Y.  Martin  &  Yerger  (Tenn.) 

Mason  Mason  (U.S.) 

Mass.  Massachusetts 

Maule  &S.  Maule  &  Selwyn  (Bng.) 
Maynard  (Eng.) 

McAllister  (U.S.) 

McO,  McCahon  (Kan.) 

McOielL  McClelland  (Eng.) 

McOlelL&Y.  McClelland  &  Younge  (Eng.) 

McCord,  McOord  (S.C.) 

McCrary  McCrary  (U.S.) 

McG.  McGloin(La.) 

McLean  McLean  (U.S.) 

McMuL  McMullan  (S.O.) 

Md.  Maryland 

Md.Cn.  Maryland  Chancery 

Me.  Maine 

Mees.&Ros.  Meeson  &  Boscpe  Wng.) 

Mees.&W.  Meeson  &  Welsby  (Eng.) 

Meg.  Megone  (Eng.) 

Meigs  Meigs  (Tenn.) 

Menzies    Cape 
Good  Hope 

Meriv. 

Mete. 

Mete. 

M.&G. 

M.&EL 

Mich. 

Mich.NJP. 

Mich.T. 

Miles 

Mill.  Const 


Menzies  Cape  of  Good  Hope 

Merivale  (Bng.) 

Metcalf  (Mass.) 

Metcalfe  (Ky.) 

Manning  &  Granger  (Bng.) 

Murphy  &  Hurlstone  (Eng,) 

Michigan 

Michigan  Nisi  Prius 

Michaelmas  Term  (Bng.) 

Miles  (Pa.) 

Mill's  Constitutional  (S.O.) 


Mill.Dec.  Miller's  Decisions  (U.S.) 

Mffls  Mills  (N.Y.) 

Milw.  Milward  (Ir.) 

Minn.  Minnesota 

Minor  Minor  (Ala.) 

Misc.  Miscellaneous  (N.Y.) 

Miss.  Mississippi 

Miss.Dec.  Mississippi  Decisions 

Miss.St.Cas.  Mississippi  State  Cases 

M.&M.  Moody  &  Malkin  (Bng.) 

Mo.  Missouri 

Mo.App.  Missouri  Appeals 

Moak  Moak  (Eng.) 

Mo.A.R.  Missouri  Appeals  Reporter 

Mod.  Modern  (Bng.) 

Mod.CasX.&Eq.  Modern   Cases   at  Law   and  Equity 
(Bng.) 

Molloy  Molloy  (Ir.) 

Mon.  Monaghan  (Pa.) 

Mont  Montana 

Mont  Montagu  (Bng.) 

Mont.Bank.Rep.  Montagu's   English  Bankruptcy  Re- 
ports 

Mont.L.R.  Montreal  Law  Reports  (Can.) 

Mont&A.  Montagu  &  Ayrton   (Bng.) 

Mont&B.  Montagu  &  Bligh  (Bng.) 

Mont&O.  Montagu  &  Chitty  (Bng.) 

Mont.D.&DeG.  Montagu,  Deacon  &  De  Gex  (Bug.) 

Montg.Co,  Montgomery   County   Law   Reporter 
(Pa.) 

Mont.&3iL  Montagu  &  McArthur  (Bng.) 

Montr.Oond.Rep.  Montreal  Condensed  Reports 

Montr.Leg.N.  Montreal  Legal  News 

Montr.QS.  Montreal  Law  Reports  Queen's  Bench 

Montr.Super.  Montreal  Law  Reports  Superior  Court 

Moody  C.C.  Moody's  Crown  Gases  (Eng.) 

Moore  C.P.  Moore's  Common  Pleas  (Eng.) 

Moore  Indian  App.Moore's  Indian  Appeals  (Eng.) 
Moore's  King's  Bench  (Eng.) 


Moore  K.B. 
Moore  P.O. 

Moore  P.C.N.S.      Moore's  Privy  Council  New   Series- 


Moore's    Privy    Council    Old    Series 


Moore&S. 

Moore&W. 

Mor.Min.Rep. 

Morr. 

Morr.Bankr.Oas. 

Morr.StOas. 

Mosely 

M.&P. 

M.&R. 

M.&Rob. 

M.&S. 

Mun.Corp.Cas. 

Munf. 

Murph. 

Murr. 

M.&W. 

Myl.&O. 

Myl.&K. 

MyrJProb, 


(Bng.) 
Moore  &  Scott  (Bng.) 
Moore  &  Walker  (Tei.) 
Morrison's  Mining  Reports 
Morris  (Iowa) 

MorrelTs  Bankruptcy  Cases  (Bng.) 
Morns'  State  Cases  (Miss.) 
Mosely  (Bng.) 
Moore  &  Payne  (Bng.) 
Manning  &  Ryland  (Bng.) 
Moody  &  Robinson  (Eng.) 
Maule  &  Selwyn  (Bng.) 
Municipal  Corporation  Cases 
Munford  (VaJ 
Murphey  (N.C.) 
Murray  (Sc.) 
Meeson  &  Welsby  (Bng.) 
Mylne  &  Craig  iBng.) 


Nat.Bankr.Reg. 

Nat.Corp.Rep. 

NatL-Rep. 

N.B. 

N.BenL 

NJBJBo. 

N.O. 

N.Ohipm. 

NGConf 

N  0  TJtek 


N.B.  (2d) 

Neb. 

Neb.(Uno&) 

Nels. 

NdLkbr. 


Mylne  &  Keen  (Bng.) 
Myrick's  Probate  (CaL) 

N 

National  Bankruptcy  Register  (U.S.) 
National  Corporation  Reporter 
National  Law  Reporter 
New  Brunswick 
New  Benloe  (Eng.) 
New  Brunswick  Equity 
North  Carolina 
N.  Chipman  (Vt) 
North  Carolina  Conference 
North  Carolina  Term  Reports 
North  Dakota 

North  Eastern  Reporter  . 

North  Eastern  Reporter  Second  Series 
Nebraska 

Nebraska  Unofficial 
Nelson  (Eng.)  ,     ^ 

Kelson's  Abridgment  of  the  Common 
Law 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


Nev.  ,  Nevada 

NewbAdm.  Newberry's  Admiralty  (U.S.) 

NewfoundL  Newfoundland 

Newf.Sel.Cas.  Newfoundland  Select  Cases 

New  Eep.  New  Reports  in  all  Courts  (Bng.) 

New  Sess.Cas.  New  Session  Cases   (Eng.) 

New  ZeaLL.  New  Zealand  Law 

N.H.  New  Hampshire 

N.J.Eq.  New  Jersey  Equity 

N.J.Law  New  Jersey  Law 

N.J.L.J.  New  Jersey  Law  Journal 

N.J.Misc.  New  Jersey  Miscellaneous 

N.M.  New  Mexico 

N.&M.  Nevile  &  Manning  (Eng.) 

N.&Macn.  Neville  &  Macnamara  (Eng.) 

Nolan  Nolan  (Eng.) 

North.  Northington  (Eng.) 

North.Go.  Northampton  County  Reporter  (Pa.) 

Northum.  Northumberland  County  Legal  News 

(Pa.) 
Northumb.Co.Leg.  Northumberland  County  Legal  News 


N. 

Notes  of  Cas. 
Nott  &  McC. 
Noy 
N.&P. 
N.S. 

N.S.Dec. 
N.S.Wales 
N.S.Wales  L. 


(Pa.) 

Notes  of  Cases  (Eng. 

Nott  &  McCord  (S.C.) 

Noy  (Eng.) 

Nevile  &  Perry  (Eng.) 

Nova  Scotia 

Nova  Scotia  Decisions 

New  South  Wales 

..  .         New  South  Wales  Law 

N.S.Wales  L.R.Eq.New  South  Wales  Law  Reports  Eq- 

uity 

N.W.  North  Western  Reporter 

N.Y.  New  York 

N.Y.Ann.Cas.          New  York  Annotated  Cases 
N.Y.City  Ct.  New  York  City  Court 

N.Y.Oity  Ct.Suppl.New  York  City  Court  Supplement 
N.Y.Civ.Proc.          New  York  Civil  Procedure 
N.Y.Civ.Pr.Rep.      New  York  Civil  Procedure  Reports 

N.S.°  6     eP°r  S'New  York  Code  Reports,  New  Series 
N.Y.Cr.  New  York  Criminal 

N.YXeg.Obs.          New  York  Legal  Observer 
N.Y.L.Rec.  New  York  Law  Record  t 

N.Y.Month.L.Bul.   New  York  Monthly  Law  Bulletin 


N.Y.S. 
N.Y.St. 
N.Y.Super. 
N.Y.Wkly.Dig. 


O.Ben. 
O.Bridgm. 
Off.Gaz. 
Ohio 

Ohio  App. 
Ohio  Cir.Ct. 
Ohio  Cir.Ct.N.S. 
Ohio  Cir.Dec. 
Ohio  Dec. 

(Reprint) 
Ohio  FJDec. 
Ohio  L.J. 
OhioN.P. 
Ohio  N.P.N.S. 
Ohio  O. 
Ohio  Prob. 
Ohio  S.&CJP, 

Ohio  St 

OkL 

OkLCr. 

Olcott 

Oliv.B.&Ii. 

0'M.£H. 

Ont. 

OntA. 

OntELCaS. 

OntL. 

OntLJ. 

OntL.J.N.S. 

OntPr. 


New  York  Supplement 
New  York  State  Reporter 
New  York  Superior  Court 
New  York  Weekly  Digest 

/ 

o 

Old  Benloe  (Eng.) 

Orlando  Bridginan  (Eng.) 

Official  Gazette 

Ohio 

Ohio  Court  of  Appeals 

Ohio  Circuit  Court 

Ohio  Circuit  Court  New  Series 

Ohio  Circuit  Decisions 

Ohio  Decisions  (Reprint) 
Ohio  Federal  Decisions 
Ohio  Law  Journal 
Ohio  Nisi  Prius 
Ohio  Nisi  Prius  New  Series 
Ohio  Opinions 
Ohio  Probate 

Ohio  Superior  &  Common  Pleas  Deci- 
sions 

Ohio  State 
Oklahoma 
Oklahoma  Criminal 
Olcott  (U.S.) 

Oliver,  Beavan  &  Lefroy  (Eng.) 
O'Malley  &  Hardcastle  (Ir.) 
Ontario 

Ontario  Appeals 
Ontario  Election  Cases 
Ontario  Law 
Ontario  Law  Journal 
Ontario  Law  Journal  New  Series 
Ontario  Practice 


Ont.W.N. 

Ontario  Weekly  Notes 

OntW.R. 

Ontario  Weekly  Reporter 

Op.Atty.-Gen. 

Opinions  of  Attorneys-General  (U.S.) 

Op.Sol.Dept 
Labor 

Opinions  of  the  Solicitor  for  the  De- 
partment   of    Labor    dealing    with 

Workmen's  Compensation 

Or. 

Oregon 

Orleans  App. 

Orleans  Appeals  (La.) 

Overt 

Over  ton  (Tenn.) 

Owen 

Owen  (Eng.) 

P 

p. 

Pacific  Reporter 

P.(2d) 

Pacific  Reporter  Second  Series 

[1S91]P. 

Law  Reports  [1891]  Probate  (Eng.) 

Pa. 

Pennsylvania  State 

Pa.Cas. 

Pennsylvania   Supreme   Court   Cases 

(Sadler) 

Pa.Co. 

Pennsylvania  County  Court 

Pa.C.PL 

Common  Pleas  (Pa.) 

Pa.Dist 

Pennsylvania  District 

Pa.Dist&Co. 
Paige 

Pennsylvania  District  and  County 
Paige's  Chancery  (N.Y.) 

Paine 

Paine  (U.S.) 

Pa.L.J. 

Pennsylvania  Law  Journal 

Pa.L.Rec. 
Pa.L.J.R. 

Pennsylvania  Law  Record 
Clark's    Pennsylvania    Law    Journal 

Reports 

Palm. 

Palmer  (Eng.) 

Park. 
Park.  Or. 

Parker  (Eng.) 
Parker's  Criminal  (N.Y.) 

Pnrk.Exch, 

Parker's  Exchequer  (Kng.) 

Park.Ins. 

Parker's  Insurance  (Eng.) 

Pars.Eq.Oas. 

Parsons'  Equity  Cases  (Pa.) 

Pa.Super. 
Paton  App.Cas. 

Pennsylvania  Superior  Court 
Paton's  Appeal  Cases  (fcte.) 

Patrick  El.Cas. 

Patrick's  Election  Cases  (Can.) 

Patt&EL 

Patton  &  Heath  (Va.) 

P.D. 

Law  Reports  Probate  Division  (EJng.) 

P.&D. 
Peake  N.P. 

Perry  &  Davison  (Eng.) 
Peake's  Nisi  Prius  (Eng.) 

Pearce  C.C. 

Pearce's  Reports  in  Dearsly's  (Bng.) 

Pearson 

Pearson  (Pa.) 

Peck 

Peck  (Tenn.) 

Peck,E1.0as. 

Peckwell's  Election  Cases  (Eng.) 

Pennew. 

Pennewill  (Del.) 

Ponuyp. 

Pennypackcr  (Pa.) 

Penr.&W. 

Penrose  &  Watts  (Pa.) 

Perry  &  BJDU 

Perry  &  Knapp  Election  Cases  (Eng.) 

Pet 
PetAdm. 

Peters  (U.S.) 
Peters'  Admiralty  (U.S.) 

PetO.C. 

Peters1  Circuit  Court  (U.S.) 

Phil. 

Phillips  (Eng.)       . 

Phil. 

Phillip  (N.C.) 

Phila. 

Philadelphia  (Pa.) 

Philippine 
Phillim. 

Philippine 
Phillimore  Ecclesiastical  (Eng.) 

Pick. 

Pickering  (Mass.) 

Pig.&R. 

Pigott  &  Rod  well  (Eng.) 

Pig.Rec. 

Pigolt's  Recoveries  (Eng.) 

Pinn. 

Pinney  (Wis.) 

Pittsb. 

Pittsburgh  (Pa.) 

Pittsb.Leg.J. 

Pittsb.Leg.J.N.S. 

Pittsburgh  Legal  Journal  (Pa.) 
Pittsburgh  Legal  Journal  New  Scries 

(Pa.) 

P.&K. 

Perry  &  Knapp  (Eng.) 

Plowd. 

Plowden  (Eng.) 

Pollexf. 
Poph, 

Pollexfen  (Eng.) 
Popham  (Eng.) 

Port 

Porter  (Ala.) 

Posey 

Posey's  Un  reported  Cnses  (Tex.) 

Puerto  Rico 

Puerto  Rico 

Puerto  Rico  Fed. 

Puerto  Rico  Federal 

Pow.Surr. 

Powers'  Surrogate  (N.Y.) 

P.R.&D.ELCas. 

Power,    Rodwell   &  Dew's    Election 

Cases  (Eng.) 

Prec.Oh. 

Precedents  in  Chancery  (Eng.) 

Pr.Edw.IsL 

Prince  Edward  Island 

Price 

Price  (Bng.) 

Price  Pr.Oas. 

Price's  Practice  Cases  (Eng.) 

Prid.&0. 

Pridcaux  &  Cole  (Eng.) 

Prob.  [1917] 

Law  Reports,  Probate  Division  (Eng.) 

TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


Prob.Rep. 

Pr.Rep. 

P.Wms. 

P.UJR. 

Pyke 


Q.B. 

[1S91]Q.B> 
Q.BJX 

Queensl.J.P. 

Queensl.L. 

Q  u  e  ensLLJT* 

Que.L. 

Que.Pr. 

Que.Q.B. 

Que.Rev.Jud. 
Que.Super. 

Quincy 


Rand.' 
Rap.Jud.Q.C.S. 

Rawle 
R.C.L. 
R.&Can.Cas. 
R.&Can.Tr.Cas. 

Redf. 
Redf.&B. 

Redf.R.Cas. 

Redf.Surr. 

Reeve  EngJj. 

Reports 

Reprint 

Rep.kFinch 

Rep.t.Hard. 

Rep.tHolt 
Res.&Eq.Judgm. 

Rev.Crit. 

Rev.de  Jur. 

Rev.de  Legis. 

Rev.Leg. 

Rev.Leg.N.S. 

Rev.Rep. 

R.I. 

Rice 

Rich. 

Rich.OP. 

Ridg. 

Ridg.Ap. 

Ridg.L.&S. 

Ridg.P.C. 

Ridg.t.Hardw. 

Riley 

R.&M. 

RJMCharlt 

Rob. 

Rob. 

Robb  PatCas. 

Robert.App.Cas. 

Rob.Eccl. 

Robin.App.Cas. 

Rob.Wm.Adm. 

Rolle 

Rolle  Abr. 

Rolls  Ct.Rep. 

Rom.Cas. 

Root 

49  C.J.S.— b 


Probate  Reports  (Eng.) 
Practice  Reports  (Eng.) 
Peere-Williams  (Eng.) 
Public  Utilities  Reports 
Pyke  (Can.) 


Q 


Queen's  Bench  (Adolphus  &  Ellis  New 


Series)  (Eng.) 
Law  Reports  [1891] 


Queen's  Bench 


Law  Reports  Queen's  Bench  Division 

(Eng.) 

Queensland  Justice  of  the  Peace 
Queensland  Law 
Queensland  Law  Journal 
Quebec  Law 
Quebec  Practice 
Quebec     Official     Reports     Queen's 

Bench 

Quebec  Revised  Judicial 
Quebec    Official    Reports     Superior 

Court 
Quincy  (Mass.) 

R 

Randolph  (Va.) 

Rapport's  Judiciaries  de  Quebec  Cour 

Superieure 
Rawle  (Pa.) 
Ruling  Case  Law 
Railway  &  Canal  Cases  (Eng.) 
Railway  &  Canal  Traffic  Cases  (Eng.) 
Redfield's   Surrogate    (N.Y.) 
Redfield  &  Bigelow's  Leading  Cases 

(Eng.) 

Redfleld's  Railway  Cases  (Eng.) 
Redfield's  Surrogate  (N.Y.) 
Reeve's  English  Law 
Reports  (Eng.) 
English  Reprint 
Cases  temp.  Finch  (Eng.) 
Lee's    Reports    tempore    Hardwicke 

(Eng.) 
Reports  tempore  Holt  (English  Cases 

of  Settlement) 
Reserved  &  Equity  Judgments  (N.S. 

Wales) 

Revue  Critique  (Can.) 
Revue  de  Jurisprudence  (Can.) 
Revue  de  Legislation  (Can.) 
Revue  Legale  (Can.)     . 
Revue  Legale  New  Series  (Can.) 
Revised  Reports  (Eng.) 
Rhode  Island 
Rice  (S.C.) 
Richardson  (S.C.) 
Richardson's  Practice  Common  Pleas 

(Eng.) 

Ridgeway's   Reports   tempore  Hard- 
wicke (Eng.) 
Ridgeway's  Appeal  (Ir.) 
Ridgeway,  Lapp  &  Schoale  (Ir.) 
Ridgeway's  Parliament  Cases  (Ir.) 
Ridgeway  temp.  Hardwicke  (Eng.) 
Riley  (S.C.) 
Ryan  &  Moody  (Eng.) 
R.  M.  Charlton  (Ga.) 
Robinson  (La.) 

Robinson  (Va.)  

Robb's  Patent  Cases  (U.S.) 
Robertson's  Appeal  Cases  (Sc.) 
Robertson's  Ecclesiastical  (Eng.) 
Robinson's  Appeal  Cases  (Sc.) 
William  Robinson's  Admiralty  (Eng.) 
Rolle  (Eng.) 

Rolle's  Abridgment  (Eng.) 
Rolls'  Court  Reports 
Romilly's  Notes  of  Cases  (Eng.) 
Boot  (Conn.) 


Rose 

Hoss  Lead.Cas. 

R.&R. 

Russ. 

Russ.&C.Eq.Cas. 

Russ.Eq.Cas. 
Russ.&Geld. 
Russ.&M. 
Ry.&M. 


Salk. 

Sandf. 

Sandf.Ch. 

Sask.L. 

Saund. 

Saund.&C. 

Sau.&Sc. 

S.AustrJi. 

Sav. 

Sawy. 

Saxt. 

[1907] S.C. 

Scam. 

S.C.Eq. 

Seh.&Lef. 

[1907]S.C.(J.) 

Sc.Jur. 

S.C.L. 

Sc.L.Rep. 

Scot  L.T. 

Scott 

Scott  NJR. 

ScrJML\ 

Sc.Sess.Cas. 

S.Ct- 

S.D. 

S.E. 

Searle  &  Sm. 

Sel.Cas.ClL 

Seld. 

Selden 

Selw. 

Serg.&R. 

Sess.Cas. 

Shan. 

Shaw 

Shaw&D. 

Shaw  Dec. 

Shaw,  Dunl.&B. 

Shaw&M. 

Sheld. 

Shep.Abr. 

Sheph.Sel.Cas. 

Show. 

Show.P.0. 

Sid. 

SilvA. 

.Silv.Sup. 

Sim. 

Sim.N.S. 

Sim.&St. 

Skin. 

Smale&G. 

Smith 

Smith 

Smith&B. 

Smith  K.B. 

Smith  Lead.Cas. 

Smith  Reg. 

Sm.&M. 

Sm.&M.Ch. 

Smythe 

Sneed 

So. 

SoLJ. 

Sp. 

Spinks 

Spinks 


Rose  (Eng.) 

Ross'  Leading  Cases  (Eng.) 

Russell  &  Ryan  Crown  Cases  (Eng.) 

Russell  (Eng.)  ^ 

Russell's  &  Chesley's  Equity  Cases 

Russell's  Equity  Cases  (N.S.)  . 
Russell  &  Geldert,  Nova  Scotia 
Russell  &  Hylne  (Eng.) 
Ryan  &  Moody  (Eng.) 


Salkeld  (Eng.)  /WVv 

Sandford*s  Supenor  Court  (N.Y.) 
Sandford's  Chancery  (N.Y.) 
Saskatchewan  Law 
Saunders  (Eng.) 
Saunders  &  Cole  (Eng.) 
Sausse  &  Scully  (Ir.) 
Soutjt  Australia  Law 
Savile  (Eng.) 
Sawyer  (U.S.) 
Saxton  (N.J.) 
Sayer  (Eng.) 
South  Carolina 
Court  of  Session  Cases  (Sc.) 
Scammon  (I1L) 
South  Carolina  Equity 
Schoales  &  Lefroy  (Ir.) 
Court  of  Justiciary  Cases  (Sc.) 
Scottish  Jurist 
South  Carolina  Law 
Scottish  Law  Reporter 
Scot  Law  Times 
Scott  (Eng.) 

Scott's  New  Reports  (Eng.) 
Scranton  Law  Times  (Pa.) 
Scotch  Court  of  Session  Cases 
-Supreme  Court  Reporter  (U.S.) 
South  Dakota 
South  Eastern  Reporter 
Searle  &  Smith  (Eng.) 
Select  Cases  in  Chancery  (Eng.) 
Selden's  Notes  (N.Y.) 
Selden  (N.Y.) 
Selwyn's  Nisi  Prius  (Eng.) 
Sergeant  &  Rawle  (Pa.) 
Court  of  Session  Cases  (Eng.) 
Shannon  (Tenn.) 
Shaw  (Sc.) 
Shaw  &  Dunlop  (Sc.) 
Shaw's  Digest  of  Decisions  (Sc.) 
Shaw,  Dunlop  &  Bell  (Sc.) 
Shaw  &  MacLean  (Sc.) 
Sheldon  (N.Y.) 
Sheppard  s  Abridgment 
Shepherd's  Select  Cases  (Ala.) 
Shower  (Eng.) 

Shower's  Parliament  Cases  (Eng*) 
Siderfin  (Eng.) 
Silvernail's  Appeals  (N.Y.) 
Silvernail's  Supreme  (N.Y.) 
Simons  (Eng.)     . 
Simons  New  Series   (Eng.) 
Simons  &  Stuart  (Eug.) 
Skinner  (Eng.) 
Smale  &  Giffard  (Eng.) 
Smith  (Ind.) 
Smith  (N.H.) 
Smith  &  Batty  (Ir.) 
Smith's  King's  Bench  (Eng.) 
Smith's  Leading  Cases  (Eng.) 
Smith's  Registration  (Eng.) 
Smedes  &  Marshall  (Hiss.) 
Smedes  &  Marshall  Chancery  (Miss.) 
Smythe  (Ir.) 
Sneed  (Tenn.) 
Southern  Reporter 
Solicitor's  Journal  (Eng.) 
Speers  (S.C.) 
Spinks  Admiralty  (Bng.) 
Spinks'  Ecclesiastical  and  Admiralty 
(Eng.) 


XVI 

Spinks,  P.O. 

Spottisw. 

Spottisw.Bq. 

Sprague 

Stair 

Stark. 

Stat.  at  L. 

Stew. 

Stew. 

Stew.&P. 

StocktVice-Adm. 

Story 

Str. 

Strob. 

Stuart  Vice-Adm. 

Stu.M.&P. 

Style 

Sumn, 

Susq.Leg.Chron. 

S.W, 

S.W.(2d) 

Swab. 
Swab.&Tr. 
Swan 
Swanst 


TamL 

Taney 

Tapp. 

Taunt 

Taylor 

T.B.Mon. 

Tenn. 

Tenn.Appt 

Tenn.Gas. 

Tenn.Oh. 

Tenn.Ch.A. 

Tenn.Civ.A. 

TerrJU 

Tex. 

Tex,App. 

Tex.A.Giv.Gas. 

Tex.Giv.App. 

TexXJr. 

Tex.Suppl. 

Tex.Unrep.Cas. 

Thach.Cr. 

Thomps.&0. 

Thomps.Gas. 

Tinw. 

T.Jones 

TXJEfc. 

T.M.R. 

T.&M. 

Toth. 

T.R. 

TranscrA. 

T.Raym. 

Tread.0onst 

TreasDec. 

Tr.&H.Pr. 

Trint.T. 

Truem.Bq.Oas. 

Tuck.Sel,Oas. 

Tuck.Surr, 

T,U.P.Charlt 

Turn.&R. 

Tyler 

Tyrw, 

Tyrw.&CL 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


Splnks'  Prize  Cases  (Eng.) 
Spottiswoode  (Sc.) 
Spottiswoode's  Equity  (Sc.) 
Sprague  (U.S.) 

Starkie  Nisi  Prius  (Eng.) 
United  States  Statutes  at  Large 
Stewart  (Ala.) 
Stewart's  Reports  (N.S.) 
Stewart  &  Porter  (Ala.) 
Stockton's  Vice-Admiralty  (N.B.) 
Story  (U.S.) 


Strange  (Eng.) 

Strobhart  (S.C.) 

Stuart's  Vice-Admiralty  (L.C.) 


Stuart,  Milne  &  Peddie  (Sc.) 


Style  (Eng.) 
Sumner  (U.S.) 
Susquehanna  Legal  ( 


Ter- 


.Cham. 

.OJP. 
U.C.E.&A. 
U.OJKJB. 


Sumner       ..          ^        .  ,    ,~   v 
Susquehanna  Legal  Chronicle  (Pa.) 
South  Western  Reporter 
South  Western  Reporter  Second 

Series 

Swabey's  Admiralty  (Eng.) 
Swabey  &  Tristram  (Eng.) 
Swan  (Tenn.) 
Swanston  (Eng.) 

T 

Tamlyn  (Eng.) 

Taney  (U.S.) 

Tappan  (Oh.) 

Taunton  (Eng.) 

Taylor  (N.C.) 

T.  B.  Monroe  (Ky.) 

Tennessee 

Tennessee  Appeals 

Unreported  Tennessee  Cases 

Tennessee  Chancery 

Tennessee  Chancery  Appeals 

Tennessee  Civil  Appeals 

Territories    Law    (Northwest 

ritories) 
Texas 

Texas  Court  of  Appeals 
White  &  Wilson's  Civil  Cases  (Tex.) 
Texas  Civil  Appeals 
Texas  Criminal 
Texas  Supplement 
Posoy's  Unreported  Cases  (Tex.) 
Thachor's  Criminal  Cases   (Mass.) 
Thompson  &  Cook  (N.Y.) 
Thompson's  Cases  (Tenn.) 
Tinwald  (Sc.) 
Thomas  Jones  (Eng. 
Times  Law  Reports  ,. 
Trade  Mark  Reports 
Temple  &  Mew  (Bng.) 
Tothill  (Eng.) 
Term  Reports    (Dnrnford  &  Bast) 

(Bng.) 

Transcript  Appeals  (N.Y.) 
Thomas  Raymond  (Bng.) 
Treadway  Constitutional   (S.C.) 
Treasury  Decisions  (U.S.) 
Troubat  &  Haly's  Practice  (Pa.) 
Trinity  Term  (Bng.) 
Trueman's  Equity  Cases  (N.B.)     ^ 
Tucker's  Select  Cases  (Newfoundland) 
Tucker's  Surrogate  (N.Y.) 
T.  U.  P.  Charlton  (Ga.) 
Turner  &  Russell  (Eng.) 
Tyler  JVt) 
Tyrwhitt  (Bng.) 
Tyrwhitt  &  Granger  (Bng.) 

u 

Upper  Canada 

Upper  Canada  Chancery 

Upper  Canada  Chamber 

Upper  Canada  Common  Pleas 

Upper  Canada  Error  and  Appeal 

Upper  Canada  King's  Bench  Reports 


U.C.Q.B.  Upper  Canada  Queen's  Bench 

U.C.Q.B.O.S.          Upper    Canada   Queen's    Bench 

Series 

U.S.  United  States 

U.S Aviation  Bep.  Aviation  Reports  (U.S.) 
U  S.CLA.  United  States  Code  Annotated 

Utah  Utah 


Va.  Virginia 

Va.0as.  Virginia  Cases 

Va.Ch.Dec.  Chaucory  Decisions  (Va.) 

Va.Dec.  Virginia  Decisions 
Van  Ness  Prize    „     „      ,.  .     ~        /TT « v 

Oas.  Van  Ness  Prize  Cases  (U.S.) 

Vaugh.  Vaughan  (Eng.) 

Vaux,  Vaux's  Decisions  (Pa.) 

Vent.  Ventris  (Bug.) 

Vern,  Vernon's  Cases  (EngJ 

Vern,Ch,  Vernon's  Chancery  (Eng.) 

Vern.&S.  Vernon  &  Scriven  (Ir.) 

Ves.  Vesey  Senior  (Eng.) 

Ves.&B.  Vesey  &  Beames  (JBng») 

VesJr.  Vesey  Junior  (Eng.) 

Vcs.»1r.SuppL  Vcscy  Junior  Supplement  (Eng.) 

VoH.SuppL  VcKoy  Senior  Supplement  (JWug.) 

Viet  Victorian 

Vict.L.  Victorian  Law 

VictL.T.  Victorian  T-AW  Times 

VictRep.  Victorian  Reports 

Vict.St.Tr.  Victorian  State  Trials 

Vin.Abr.  Viner's  Abridgment  (Bng.) 
Virgin  Islands        Virgin  Islands 

Vt,  Vermont 


Old 


Walk. 

Walk. 

Wall. 

Woll.0.0. 

WallJr. 

Wall.Sr. 

Wallis 

Ware 

Wash. 

Wash. 

Wash.St 

WasTi.C.O. 

Wash.T. 

Watts 

Watts&S. 

W.BL 

W.C.O. 

Wobb,A'B.&WJ. 
P.&M. 


WebPatCas. 

Welsh 

Wend. 

West 

AVestLJ. 

West.L.Month. 

West.L.R. 

WestL.T. 


.^ 
West  t.Hardw. 

ri917]West.Wkly, 
Whart 
Wheat. 
WhceLCr. 
WhiteATJOead. 
CasJEq. 

Whitm.PatOas. 

Wight 

Wilcox 

Willes 

Wilnu 

Wils. 


w 

Walker  (Pa.) 

Walker's  Chancery  (Mich.) 
Wallace  (U.S.) 
Wallace  (U.S.) 
Wallace  Junior  (U.S.) 
Wallace  Senior  (U.S.) 
Wallis  (Ir.) 
Ware  (U.S.) 
Washington 
Washington  (Va.) 
Washington  State 
Washington  Circuit  Court  (U.S.) 
Washington  Territory 
Watts  (Pa.) 
Watts  &  Sergeant  (Pa.) 
William  Blackstone  (Eng.) 
Mintou-  Sen  house's   Workmen's   Com- 
pensation Cases  (HSug.) 

Webb,  A'Beckett,  &  Williams'  Insol- 
vency, Probate,  and  Matrimonial  Re- 
ports (Victoria) 

Webster's  Patent  Cases  (Bng.) 

Welsh  Registry  Cases  (Ir.) 

Wendell  (N.Y.) 

West  (Eng.) 

Western  Law  Journal  (Oh.) 

Western  Law  Monthly  (Oh.) 

Western  Law  Reporter  (Can*) 

Western  Law  Times  (Can.) 

Western  Reporter 

West  temp.  Hardwicko  (Bng.) 

Western  Weekly  (Can.) 

£19171  Western  Weekly  (Can.) 

Wharton  (Pa.) 

Whoaton  (U.S.) 

Wheeler's  Criminal  (N.Y.) 

White  &  Tudor's  Leading  Cases  in  Eq- 
uity (Eng.) 

Whitman's  Patent  Cases  (U.S.) 
Wiffhtwicke  (Bng.) 
Wilcox  (Pa.) 
Willes  (Bng.) 
Wilmot's  Notes  (Bng.) 
Wilson  (Ind.) 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


XVII 


Wils.Cn. 
Wils.C.P. 


Wils.P.C. 

Wils.&S. 

Winch 

Winst. 

Wis. 

WJones 

W.KeL 

Wkly.L.Gaz. 

Wkly.N.C. 

Wkly.Rep. 

Wms.Saund. 

W.N. 

Wolf.&B. 

Wolf.&D. 

WolL 

Woodb.&M. 

Woods 

Woodw. 

Woolw; 

Words  &  Phrases 

Wright 


Wilson's  Chancery  (Bng.) 

Wilson's  Common  Pleas  (Eng.) 

Wilson's  Exchequer  (Eng.) 

Wilson's  Privy  Council  (Eng.) 

Wilson  &  Shaw  (Sc.) 

Winch  (Eng.) 

Winston  (N.C.) 

Wisconsin 

William  Jones  (Eng.) 

William  Kelynge  (E)ng.) 

Weekly  Law  Gazette  (Oh.) 

Weekly  Notes  of  Cases  (Pa.) 

Weekly  Reporter  (Eng.) 

Williams  Notes  to  Saunders'  Reports 

Weekly  Notes  (Eng.) 

Wolferstan  &  Bristow's  Election  Cas- 
es (Eng.) 

Wolferstan  &  Dew's  Election  Cases 
(Eng.) 

Wollaston  (Eng.) 

Woodbury  &  Minot  (U.S.) 

Woods  (U.S.) 

Woodward's  Decisions  (Pa.) 

Woolworth  (U.S.) 

Words  &  Phrases 

Wright  (Oh.) 


W.Rob. 

Wr.Pa. 

W.Va. 

W.W.Earr. 

W.W.&D. 

W.W.&H. 

Wyo. 

Wythe 

Wy.&W. 

Wy.W.&A'Beck. 


Yates  SeLCas. 

Y.B. 

Y.&C.Exch. 

Y.&C01L 

Yeates 

Yelv. 

Yerg. 

"V     0     T 

1.&J. 

York  Leg.Rec. 
Young  Adm. 
Younge 


William  Robinson's  Admiralty  (Eng.) 

Wright  (Pa.) 

West  Virginia 

W.  W*  Harrington 

Willmore,     Wollaston     &    Davidson 

(Eng.) 

Willmore,  Wollaston  &  Hodges  (Eng.) 
Wyoming 

Wythe's  Chancery  (Va.) 
Wyatt  &  Webb  (Viet.) 
Wyatt,  Webb  &  A'Beckett  (Vict> 


Yates  Select  Cases  (N.Y.) 

Year  Book  (Eng.) 

Younge  &  Collyer's  Exchequer  (Eng.) 

Younge  &  Collyer's  Chancery  (Eng.) 

Yeates  (Pa.) 

Yelverton  (Eng.) 

Yerger  (Tenru) 

Younge  &  Jervis  (Eng.) 

York  Legal  Record  (Pa.) 

Young's  Admiralty  Decisions  (N.S.) 

Younge  Exchequer  (Eng.) 


LAW  REVIEWS  AND  LAW  JOURNALS 


A.B.A.Jour. 
Am.J.IntXaw. 

Am.Law  S.Rev. 

B.U.L.Rev. 

Brooklyn  L.Rev. 

Calif.L.Rev. 

Camb.L.J. 

Chi-Kent  Rev. 

Cohun.L.Rev. 

Oom.L.J. 

Cornell  L.Q. 

Detroit  LJRev. 

DickJL.Rev. 

Fed.BJuJ. 

Fla.KJ. 

Pordham  L.Rev. 

Geo.Wash.L.Rey. 

GeoX.J. 

1-Iarv.L.Rev; 

Ia.L.Rev. 

Idaho  L.J* 

IlLL.Rev. 

Ind.L.J. 

J.Am.Jud.Soc. 

J.CompJjeg. 

J.N.A.Referees 

Bank. 
J.Soc.Pub.Teach. 

Law 
John  Marshall  L. 

Q. 
Kan.Gity  L.Rev. 


L.,7. 

L.Lib.J. 

Law  Ser.Mo.BuIL 

I/aw  SooJ. 


American  Bar  Association  Journal 

American  Journal  of  International 
Law 

American  Law  School  Review 

Boston  University  Law  Review 

Brooklyn  Law  Review 

California  Law  Review 

Cambridge  Law  Journal 

Chicago-Kent  Review 

Columbia  Law  Review 

Commercial  Law  Journal 

Cornell  Law  Quarterly 

Detroit  Law  Review 

Dickinson  Law  Review 

Federal  Bar  Association  Journal 

Florida  Law  Journal 

Fordham  Law  Review 

George  Washington  Law  Review 

Georgetown  Law  Journal 

Harvard  Law  Review 

Iowa  Law  Review 

Idaho  Law  Journal 

Illinois  Law  Review 

Indiana  Law  Journal 

Journal  of  the  American  Judicature 
Society 

Journal  of  the  Society  of  Comparative 
Legislation 

Journal  of  the  National  Association  of 
Referees  in  Bankruptcy 

Journal  of  the  Society  of  Pub.  Teach- 
ers of  Law 

The  John  Marshall  Law  Quarterly 

Kansas  City  Law  Review 

Kansas  State  Law  Journal 

Kentucky  Law  Journal 

Law  Journal 

Law  Library  Journal 

University  of  Missouri  Bulletin,  Law 

Series 
Law  Society  Journal 


Lincoln  L.Rev. 
Marq.L.Rev. 
Mass.L.Q. 
Mercer,  Beasley 

L.Rev. 
Mich.L.Rev. 
Minn.L.Rev. 
MissJLJ. 
Neb.L.B. 
N.J.L.J. 
N.J.L.Rev. 
N.Y.UJLQJtev. 


Lincoln  Law  Review 
Marquette  Law  Review 
Massachusetts  Law  Quarterly 


Mercer,  Beasley  Law  Review 

Michigan  Law  Review 

Minnesota  Law  Review 

Mississippi  Law  Journal 

Nebraska  Law  Bulletin 

New  Jersey  Law  Journal 

New  Jersey  Law  Review 

New  York  'University  Law  Quarterly 

Review 

Notre  Dame  Law.Notre  Dame  Lawyer 
N.C.L.Rev.  North  Carolina  Law  Review 

Okla.S.B.J.  Oklahoma  State  Bar  Journal 

Oreg.L.Rev.  Oregon  Law  Review 

PhiLLbJ.  Philippine  Law  Journal 

Rocky  Mt.L.Rev.    Rocky  Mountain  Law  Review    ' 
St.  John's  L.Rev.    St  John's  Law  Review 
St.  Louis  LJRev.    St.  Louis  Law  Review  (now  Washing- 
ton University  Law  Quarterly) 
So.Calif .L.Rev.       Southern  California  Law  Review 
Temp.L.Q.  Temple  Law  Quarterly 

Tenn.L.Rev.  Tennessee  Law  Review 

Tex.L.Rev.  Texas  Law  Review 

Tul.L.Rev.  Tulane  Law  Review 

U.CMX.Rev.          University  of  Chicago  Law  Review 
U.Cin.L.Rev.  University  of  Cincinnati  Law  Review 

U.Detroit  L. J*        University  of  Detroit  Law  Journal 
U.Pa.L.Rev.  University  of  Pennsylvania  Law  He- 

view 

U.  of  Pitts.LJElev.University  of  Pittsburgh  Law  Review 
U.Toronto  L.J.       University  of  Toronto  Law  Journal 
Va.L.Rev.  Virginia  Law  Review 

Wash.L.Rev.          Washington  Law  Review 
Wash.UX.Q,  Washington  University  Law  Quarterly 

W.Va.L.Q.  West  Virginia  Law  Quarterly  and  The 

Bar 

WisXJaev«  Wisconsin  Law  Review 

Yale  LJ.  Yale  Law  Journal 


LIST  OF  TITLES 

IN 

CORPUS  JURIS  SECUNDUM 


.Abandonment 

Abatement  and  Revival 

Abduction 

Abortion 

Absentees 

Abstracts  of  Title 

Accession 

Accord  and  Satisfaction 

Account,  Action  on 

Accounting 

Account  Stated 

Acknowledgments 

Actions 

Adjoining  Landowners 

Admiralty 

Adoption  of  Children 

Adulteration 

Adultery 

Adverse  Possessiofc 

Aerial  Navigation 

Affidavits 

Affray 

Agency 

Agriculture 

Aliens 

Alteration  of  Instruments 

Ambassadors  and  Consuls 

Amicus  Curias 

Animals 

Annuities 

Appeal  and  Error 

Appearances 

Apprentices 

Arbitration  and  Award 

Architects 

Army  and  Navy 

Arrest 

Arson 

Assault  and  Battery 

Assignments 

Assignments  for  Benefit  of 

Creditors 
Assistance,  Writ  of 


Associations 

Assumpsit,  Action  of 

Asylums 

Attachment 

Attorney  and  Client 

Attorney  General 

Auctions  and  Auctioneers 

Audita  Querela 

Bail 

Bailments 

Bankruptcy 

Banks  and  Banking 

Barratry 

Bastards 

Beneficial  Associations 

Bigamy 

Bills  and  Notes 

Blasphemy 

Bonds 

Boundaries 

Bounties 

Breach  of  Marriage  Promise 

Breach  of  the  Peace 

Bribery 

Bridges 

Brokers 

Building  and  Loan  Associations 

Burglary 

Business  Trusts 

Canals 

Cancellation  of  Instruments 

Carriers 

Case,  Action  on 

Cemeteries 

Census 

Certiorari 

Champerty  and  Maintenance 

Charities 

Chattel  Mortgages 

Citizens 

Civil  Rights 

Clerks  of  Courts 

Clubs 

XIX 


Colleges  and  Universities 

Collision 

Commerce 

Common  Lands 

Common  Law 

Common  Scold 

Compositions  with  Creditors 

Compounding  Offenses 

Compromise  and  Settlement 

Concealment  of  Birth  or  Death 

Conflict  of  Laws 

Confusion  of  Goods 

Conspiracy 

Constitutional  Law 

Contempt 

Continuances 

Contracts 

Contratos 

Contribution 

Conversion 

Convicts 

Copyright  and  Literary 

Property 
Coroners 
Corporations 
Costs 

Counterfeiting 
Counties 

Court  Commissioners 
Courts 

Covenant,  Action  of 
Covenants 
Creditors'  Suits 
Criminal  Law 
Crops 
Culpa 
Curtesy 

Customs  and  Usages 
Customs  Duties 
Damages 
Dead  Bodies 
Death 
Debt,  Action  of 


LIST  OF  TITLES 


Dedication 

Deeds 

Dependencies,      Colonies,     and 

British  Possessions 
Depositaries 
Depositions 
Deposits  in  Court 
Descent  and  Distribution 
Detectives 
Detinue 
Discovery 

Dismissal  and  Nonsuit 
Disorderly  Conduct 
Disorderly  Houses 
District    and    Prosecuting 

Attorneys 

District  of  Columbia 
Disturbance  of  Public  Meetings 
Divorce 
Domicile 
Dower 
Drains 
Druggists 
Drunkards 
Dueling 
Easements 
Ejectment 

Election  of  Remedies 
Elections 
Electricity 
Embezzlement 
Embracery 
Eminent  Domain 
Entry,  Writ  of 
Equity 
Escape 
Escheat 
Escrows 
Estates 
Estoppel 
Evidence 

Exchange  of  Property 
Exchanges 
Executions 

Executors  and  Administrators 
Exemptions 
Explosives 
Extortion 
Extradition 
Factors 

False  Imprisonment 
False  Personation 
False  Pretenses 
Federal  Courts 
Fences 


Ferries 

Finding  Lost  Goods 

Fines 

Fires 

Fish 

Fixtures 

Flags 

Food 

Forcible  Entry  and  Detainer 

Forfeitures 

Forgery 

Fornication 

Franchises 

Fraud 

Frauds,  Statute  of 

Fraudulent  Conveyances 

Game 

Gaming 

Garnishment 

Gas 

Gifts 

Good  Will 

Grand  Juries 

Ground  Rents 

Guaranty 

Guardian  and  Ward 

Habeas  Corpus 

Hawkers  and  Peddlers 

Health 

Highways 

Holidays 

Homesteads 

Homicide 

Hospitals 

Husband  and  Wife 

Improvements 

Incest 

Indemnity 

Indians 

Indictments  and  Informations 

Industrial   Co-operative 

Societies 
Infants 
Injunctions 
Innkeepers 
Insane  Persons 
Insolvency 
Inspection 
Insurance 

Insurrection  and  Sedition 
Interest 

Internal  Revenue 
International   Law 
Interpleader 
Intoxicating  Liquors 


Joint  Adventures 

Joint  Stock  Companies 

Joint  Tenancy 

Judges 

Judgments 

Judicial   Sales 
'  Juries 

Justices  of  the  Peace 

Kidnapping 

Landlord  and  Tenant 

Larceny 

Levees  and  Flood  Control 

Lewdness 

Libel  and  Slander 

Licenses 

Liens 

Limitations  of  Actions 

Lis  Pcndens 

Livery   Stable   Keepers 

Logs  and  Logging 

Lost   Instruments 

Lotteries 

Malicious  Mischief 

Malicious  Prosecution 

Mandamus 

Manufactures 

Maritime  Liens 

Marriage 

Marshaling  Assets  and 

Securities 

Master  and  Servant  ^ 
Masters*  and  Employers' 

Associations 
Mayhem 

Mechanics'  Liens 
Mercantile  Agencies 
Militia 
Mills 

Mines  and  Minerals 
Miscegenation 
Modern  Civil  Law 
Money  Lenders 
Money  Lent 
Money  Paid 
Money  Received 
Monopolies 
Mortgages 
Motions  and  Orders 
Motor  Vehicles 
Municipal  Corporations 
Names 

Navigable  Waters 
Ne  Exeat 
Negligence 
Neutrality  Laws 


LIST  OF  TITLES 


XXI 


Newspapers 

New  Trial 

Notaries 

Notice 

Novation 

Nuisances 

Oaths  and  Affirmations 

Obscenity 

Obstructing  Justice 

Officers 

Pardons 

Parent  and  Child 

Parliamentary  Law 

Parties 

Partition 

Partnership 

Party  Walls 

Patents 

Paupers 

Pawnbrokers 

Payment 

Penalties 

Pensions 

Pent  Roads 

Peonage 

Perjury 

Perpetuities 

Physicians  and  Surgeons 

Pilots 

Piracy 

Pleading 

Pledges 

Poisons 

Possessory  Warrant 

Post  Office 

Powers 

Principal  and  Surety, 

Prisons 

Private  Roads 

Prize  Fighting 

Process 

Profanity 

Prohibition 

Property 

Prostitution 

Public  Administrative  Bodies 

and  Procedure 
Public  Lands 
Public  Utilities 
Quieting  Title 
<Quo  Warranto 


Railroads 

Rape 

Real  Actions 

Receivers 

Receiving  Stolen  Goods 

Recognizances 

Records 

References 

Reformation  of  Instruments 

Reformatories 

Registers  of  Deeds 

Registration  of  Land  Titles 

Release 

Religious  Societies 

Removal  of  Causes 

Replevin 

Reports 

Rescue 

Review 

Rewards 

Right  of  Privacy 

Riot 

Robbery 

Sales 

Salvage 

Schools  and  School  Districts 

Scire  Facias 

Seals 

Seamen 

Searches  and  Seizures 

Seduction 

Sequestration 

Set-Off  and  Counterclaim 

Sheriffs  and  Constables 

Shipping 

Signatures 

Slaves 

Social  Security  and  Public 

Welfare 
Sodomy 

Specific  Performance 
Spendthrifts 
States 
Statutes 
Steam 

Stenographers 
Stipulations 
Street  Railroads 
Submission  of  Controversy 
Subrogation 
Subscriptions 


Suicide 

Summary;  Proceedings 

Sunday 

Supersedeas 

Taxation 

Telegraphs  and  Telephones 

Tenancy  in  Common 

Tender 

Territories 

Theaters  and  Shows 

Threats  and  Unlawful 

Communication 
Time 
Torts 
Towage 
Towns 
Trade-Marks,       Trade-Names, 

and  Unfair  Competition 
Trade  Unions 

Trading  Stamps  and  Coupons 
Treason 
Treaties 
Trespass 

Trespass  to  Try  Title 
Trial 

Trover  and  Conversion 
Trusts 

Turnpikes  and  Toll  Roads 
Undertakings 
United  States 

United  States  Commissioners 
United  States  Marshals 
Unlawful  Assembly 
Use  and  Occupation 
Usury 
Vagrancy 

Vendor  and  Purchaser 
Venue 
War 
Warehousemen  and  Safe 

Depositaries 
Waste 
Waters 
Weapons 

Weights  and  Measures 
Wharves 
Wills 
Witnesses 
Woods  and  Forests 
Work  and  Labor 
Workmen's  Compensation 


CORPUS  JURIS 
SEGUNDUM 


VOLUME  FORTY-NINE 


JUDGMENTS 

This  Title  includes  judicial  determinations  of  rights  of  parties  to  proceedings  in  courts  or  jusuc< 
in  general,  interlocutory  as  well  as  final;  rendition,  entry,  requisites,  and  validity  of  formal  judgments 
more  particularly  of  judgments  in  civil  actions,  and  amendment  and  correction  thereof;  operation  am 
effect  of  judgments  in  respect  of  persons  and' subject  matters  concluded,  and  of  property  bound  by  judg 
ments,  and  liens  created  by  entry,  docketing,  etc.,  of  judgments;  conclusiveness  of  judgments  as  agains 
collateral  attack;  direct  attacks  on  judgments  by  motions  in  arrest  or  to  open,  vacate,  etc.,  judgments 
writs  of  error  coram  nobis,  etc.,  or  by  actions  to  set  aside  or  restrain  enforcement  of  judgments  or  fo; 
other  relief  against  them  on  equitable  grounds;  assignment  of  judgments;  payment,  satisfaction;  an< 
discharge  of  judgments;  revival  of  judgments  by  scire  facias,  motion,  eta;  operation  and  effect  o 
judgments  of  courts  of  foreign  states  and  countries;  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  general,  more  par 
ticularly  actions  on  judgments. 

Matters  not  in  this  Title,  treated  elsewhere  in  this  work,  see  Descriptive-Word  Index 

Analysis 
I  DEFINITION,  NATURE/AND  KINDS,  §§  1-12 

H.  ESSENTIALS  OP  EXISTENCE,  VALIDITY,  AND  REGULARITY  OP  JUDGMENT,  §§  13-6: 

A.  IN  GENERAL,  §§  13-22 

B.  PROCESS,  NOTICE,  oir  APPEARANCE,  §§  23-26 

C.  PARTIES,  §§  27-38 

D.  PLEADINGS,  ISSUES,  EVIDENCE,  VERDICT,  AND  FINDINGS  TO  SUSTAIN  JUDGMENT,  §§  39-45 

E.  CONFORMITY  TO  PRIOR  PROCEEDINGS,  §§  46-61 

m.  FORM  AND  CONTENTS  OP  JUDGMENT,  AND  RELIEF  AWARDED,  §§  62-86 
IV.  ARREST  OF  JUDGMENT,  §§  87-99 
V.  RENDITION,  ENTRY,  RECORD,  AND  DOCKETING,  §§  100-133  

"  See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

490.XS.-1  1 


JUDGMENTS  49    C.J.S. 

VI.  JUDGMENT  BY  CONFESSION,  §§  134-172 

A.  IN  GENERAL,  §§  134-145 

B.  REQUISITES  AND  VALIDITY  OP  CONCESSION  GENERALLY,  §§  146-151 
C    UNDER  WARRANT  OR  POWER  off  ATTORNEY,  §§  152-157 

D.    STATEMENT  OF  INDEBTEDNESS,  §§  15&-159 

K    PROCEDURE  IN  OBTAINING  OR  ENTERING  JUDGMENT,  §§  160-167 

F.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  OF  JUDGMENT,  §§  168-172 

VIL  JUDGMENT  ON  CONSENT,  OFFER,  OR  ADMISSION,  §§  173-186 

V3H  JUDGMENT  BY  DEFAULT,  §§  187-218 
'A.    IN  GENERAL,  §§  187-203 
B.    PROCEDURE  IN  TAKING  DEFAULT  AND  ENTERING  JUDGMENT,  §§  204-218 

IX.  JUDGMENT  ON  MOTION  OR  SUMMARY  PROCEEDINGS,  §§    219-227 

X.  AMENDING,  CORRECTING,  REVIEWING,  OPENING,  AND  VACATING  JUDGMENT,  §§ 

228-340 

A.  JURISDICTION  AND  POWER  GENERALLY,  §§  228-235 

B.  AMENDMENT  AND  CORRECTION,  §§  236-264 
C    OPENING  AND  VACATING,  §§  265-310 

1.  In  General,  §§  265-285 

2.  Proceedings  and  Relief,  §§  286-310 

D.  WRIT  OF  ERROR  CORAM  NOBIS,  §§  311-313 

E.  ACTION  TO  REVIEW  JUDGMENT,  §§  314-319 
R    CONFESSED  JUDGMENTS,  §§  320-^27 

G.  JUDGMENTS  BY  CONSENT,  OFFER  AND  ACCEPTANCE,  AND  ON  MOTION  OR  SUMMARY  PROOKKDINGS, 

§§  328-332 
H.    JUDGMENTS  BY  DEFAULT,  §§  333-340 

XL  EQUITABLE  RELIEF  AGAINST  JUDGMENT,  §§  341-400 

A.  IN  GENERAL,  §§  341-349 

B.  GROUNDS  FOR  RELIEF,  §§  350-376 
C    PROCOBSDURE,  §§  377-400 

XH.  COLLATERAL  ATTACK,  §§  401-435 

A.  IN  GENERAL,  §§  401-415 

B.  GROUNDS,  §§  416-435 

XTTT.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  OP  JUDGMENT,  §§  436-453 

A.  CONSTRUCTION,  §§  436-443 

B.  OPERATION  AND  EFFECT,  §§  444-453 

XIV.  LIEN  OP  JUDGMENT,  §§  454-511 
XV.  ASSIGNMENT  OF  JUDGMENTS,  §§  512-530 

XVI.  SUSPENSION  AND  REVIVAL  OP  JUDGMENT,  §§  531-549 

A.  IN  GENERAL,  §§  531-532 

B.  REVIVAL  OF  JUDGMENTS,  §§  533-549 

XVIL  PAYMENT,  SATISFACTION,  AND  DISCHARGE  OF  JUDGMENT,  §§  550-584 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

2 


49    C.J.S.  JUDGMENTS 

XVIH.  ENFORCEMENT  OP  JUDGMENTS,  §§  585-691 

Divisions  XIX  to  End  in  Volume  5O 
XIX.  RES  JUDIOATA,  |§  592-S48 

A.  GENERAL  PEINCTPLBS,  §§  592-597 

B.  MERGER  AND  BAR  off  CAUSES  OF  ACTION  AND  DEFENSES,  §§  598-685 

1.  General  Principles,  §§  598-602 

2.  Judgments  Operative  as  Bar,  §§  603-625 

3.  Decision  on  the  Merits,  §§  626-647 

4.  Causes  of  Action  Merged  or  Barred,  §§  648-680 

5.  Defenses  and  Counterclaims  Barred  by  Former  Judgment,  §§  681-685 

C.  CONOLUSIVENESS  OF  ADJUDICATION,  §§  686-736 

1.  General  Principles,  §§  686-711 

2.  Matters  Concluded  by  Judgment,  §§  712-736 

D.  JUDGMENTS  IN  PARTICULAR  CLASSES  OF  ACTIONS  OB  PROCEEDINGS,  §§  737-755 

E.  PERSONS  AFFECTED  BY  ADJUDICATION,  §§  756-821 

1.  Who  May  Take  Advantage  of  Bar,  §§  756-761 

2.  Persons  Concluded  by  Judgments,  §§  762-821 

F.  PLEADING  AND  PROVING  JUDGMENTS,  §§  822-848 

XX.  ACTION  ON  JUDGMENT,  §§  849-887 

A.  DOMESTIC  JUDGMENTS,  §§  849-S66  ^ 

B.  FOREIGN  JUDGMENTS,  §§  867-887  ^ 

XXL  FOREIGN  JUDGMENTS,  §§  888-906 

A.  JUDGMENTS  OF  COURTS  OF  SISTEB  STATES,  §§  888-898 

B.  JUDGMENTS  OF  STATE  AND  FEDEBAL  COUBTS,  §§  899-903 

.  C.    JUDGMENTS  OF  COUBTS  OF  FOBEIGN  COUNTBEBS,  §§  904-906 

XXIT.  JUDGMENTS  IN  REM,  §§  907-911 

Sub-Analysis 

t  DEFINITION,  NATURE,  AND  KINDS— p  25 

§    1.  Definitions— p  25 

2.  General  nature— p  26 

3.  Entirety  of  judgments-?-?  27 

4.  Distinguished  from  decisions  and  findings — p  28. 

5.  Distinguished  from  rules  and  orders— p  29 

6.  Judgments  as  contracts  or  obligations— p  30 

7.  Judgments  as  assignments  or  conveyances — p  32 

8.  Classification  and  kinds— p  32 

9.  Judgment  on  issue  of  law— p  33 

10.  Judgment  on  issue  of  fact — p  34 

11.  — —  Final  and  interlocutory  judgments — p  35 

12.  Judgments  in  rem  and  in  personam — p  40 

IL  ESSENTIALS  OP  EXISTENCE,  VALIDITY,  AND  REGULARITY  OF  JUDGMENT— ^ p  40 

A.      IN  GENEBAIr— p  40 

§  13.    General  statement— p  40 

14.  Statutory  provisions  and  what  law  governs— p  41 

15.  Duly  constituted  court— p  41 

16.    Time  and  place— p  41 

17.    Judges— p  42    ^ 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 


JUDGMENTS  49    C.J.S. 

EL  ESSENTIALS  OP  EXISTENCE,   VALIDITY,  AND  EECUJLAEITY  OP  JUDGMENT— Continued 

A.  IN  GENERAL — Continued 

§  18.  Formal  proceedings — p  44 

19.  Jurisdiction — p  45 

20.  Matured  cause  of  action — p  51 

21.  Definitiveness — p  51 

22.  Reasons  for  judgment — p  51 

B.  PROCESS,  NOTICE,  OB  APPEARANCE— p  52 

§  23.  Necessity— p  52 

24.  Sufficiency— p  54 

25.  Return  and  proof  of  service — p  65 

26.  Appearance — p  65 

C.  PARTIES— p  67 

§  27.  In  general— p  67 

28.  Judgment  for  or  against  one  not  a  party — p  68 

29.  Death  of  party— p  71 

30.  Joint  parties — p  74 

31.  Plaintiffs  generally— p  74 

.  32.  Relief  as  between  coplaintiffs— p  75 

33. .  Defendants  generally— p  75 

34.  Contract  actions — p  81 

35.  Tort  actions— p  83 

36.  Joint  or  several  judgments — p  84 

37.  Relief  between  codefendants— p  94 

38.  Nominal  parties — p  95 

D.  PLEADINGS,  ISSUES,  EVIDENCE,  VERDICT,  AND  FINDINGS  TO  SUSTAIN  JUDGMENT— p  95 

§  39.  Pleadings— p  95 

40.  Necessity  and  sufficiency — p  95 

41. Several  counts— p  100 

42.  Issues— p  101 

43.  Determination  of  all  issues — p  101 

44.  Evidence— p  103 

45.  Verdict  and  findings — p  105 

E.  CONFORMITY  TO  PRIOR  PROCEEDINGS — p  107 

§  46.  Conformity  to  process — p  107 

47.  Conformity  to  pleadings  aiid  proofs — p  108 

48.  General  rules— p  108 

49.  Limitation  to  relief  sought  by  pleadings — p  111 

50.  Limitation  and  conformity  to  issues — p  117 

51.  Applications  of  rules  in  general — p  119 

52. Nature  and  form  of  action — p  128 

53.  Grounds  of  action  or  defense — p  129 

54.  Amount  of  recovery — p  133 

55.«  Conformity  to  verdict,  decision,  and  findings  in  general — j>  138 

56.  For  and  against  whom — p  143 

57.  Amount — p  144 

58.  Interest— p  146 

59.  Judgment  non  obstante  veredicto— p  147 

60.  When  and  for  whom  granted — p  148 

61.  «— *  Motion  for  judgment — p  176 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 


49    C.7.S.  JUDGMENTS 

HI.  FORM  AND  CONTENTS  OP  JUDGMENT,  AND  BELIEF  AWARDED— p  180 

§  62.  In  general— p  180 

63.  What  law  governs — p  183 

64.  Necessity  of  writing — p  183 

65.  One  or  more  judgments  in  same  case— p  184 

66.  Several  causes  tried  together — p  186 

67.  Nature  and  extent  of  relief— p  186 

68.    Amount  of  recovery — p  188 

69.    Personal  judgment  in  proceedings  by  attachment  or  in  rem — p  188 

70.    Affirmative  relief  to  defendant— p  189 

71.  Recitals— p  189 

72.  Certainty— p  191 

73.  Conditional  judgments — p  192 

74.  Alternative  judgments — p  193 

75.  Designation  of  parties — p  194 

76.  Designation  of  amount — p  198 

77.    Interest— p  199 

78.    Costs,  allowances,  and  attorney's  fees — p  200 

79.    Medium  of  payment — p  201 

80.  Description  of  property — p  203 

81.  Date— p  204 

82.  Provisions  for  enforcement — p  204 

83.  Exceptions  and  saving  clauses — p  205 

84.  Surplusage— p  206 

85.  Signing  by  judge  or  clerk — p  206  * 

86.  Nonsuit  or  judgment  on  merits — p  207 

IV.  ARRBST  OF  JUDGMENT— p  209 

§  87.  Nature  of  remedy— p  209 

88.  Grounds  of  arrest— p  210 

89.  Jurisdiction  and  venue — p  211 

90.  Process— p  211 

91.  Parties— p  212 

924  Pleadings  in  general— p  212 

93.  Variance— p  215 

94.  Jury— p  215 

95.  Verdict  and  findings — p  216 

96.  Miscellaneous— p  217 

97.  Motions  in  arrest — p  218 

98.  Hearing  and  determination — p  220 

99.  Operation  and  effect  of  arrest — p  221 

V.  RENDITION,  ENTRY,  RECORD,  AND  DOCKETING— p  222 

§  100.  Rendition  generally— p  222 

101.  Authority  and  duty  of  court — p  223 

102.  Mode  and  sufficiency— p  224 

103.  Reading  in  open  court — p  225 

104.  Application  and  order  for  judgment — p  225 

105.  On  report  of  referee— p  227 

106.  Entry  generally— p  229 

107.  Necessity— p  230 

108.  Authority  and  duty— p  232 

109.  Sufficiency  and  contents;   defects  and  irregularities— p  234 

110.  Book  or  place  of  entry — p  235 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

5 


JUDGMENTS  49    C.J.S. 

V.  RENDITION,  ENTEY,  RECORD,  AND  DOCKETING— Continued 

§  111.    Signature  of  record — p  236 

112.  — -  Notice  of  entry— p  236 

113.  Time  of  rendition  and  entry — p  237 

114.    In  vacation — p  244 

115.    Pendency  of  motion  for  new  trial  or  in  arrest — p  245 

116.    Stay  of  proceedings — p  246 

117.  Nunc  pro  tune  entry — p  246 

118.  Power  to  order  and  grounds  therefor  in  general — p  247 

119.  Time  of  entry— p  252 

120.  Proceedings  to  obtain— p  253 

121.  Operation  and  effect— p  255 

122.  Judgment  roll  or  record — p  256 

123.    Time  of  making  and  filing — p  257 

124.    By  whom  made  and  filed — p  257 

125. Contents  and  sufficiency — p  258 

126.  Docketing— p  262 

127.    Book  or  place  of  entry— p  263 

128.    Index— p  263 

129.  Filing  transcript— p  263 

130.  Recording— p  266 

131.  Lost  or  destroyed  records — p  266 

132.  Verity  and  conclusiveness  of  record — p  267 

133.  Record  as  notice — p  268 

VL  JUDGMENT  BY  CONFESSION— D  268 

A.  IN  GENERAL— p  268 

§  134.    Definition,  nature,  and  distinctions — p  268 

135.  Classes— p  269 

136.    Confession  after  action  brought — p  269 

137.    Confession  without  action — p  271 

138.  Debts  or  claims  for  which  judgment  may  be  confessed— p  271 

139.  Debts  not  matured — p  272 

140.  Contingent  liabilities — p  272 

141.  Future  advances — p  272 

142.  For  tort— p  272 

143.  Who  may  confess  judgment — p  272 

144.    Joint  or  several  debtors  or  defendants — p  273 

145.  In  whose  favor  confessed — p  273 

B.  REQUISITES  AND  VALIDITY  OF  CONCESSION  GENERALLY — p  273 

§  146.  In  general— p  273 

147.  Compliance  with  statutory  provisions  generally — p  274 

148.  Consent  or  ratification  of  creditor — p  275 

149.  Process,  appearance,  and  pleading— p  275 

150.    Confession  after  action — p  275 

151.    Confession  without  action— p  276 

C    UNDER  WARRANT  OB  POWER  OB«  ATTOJ&NEY— p  276 
§  152.    In  general— p  276 

153.  Requisites  and  sufficiency  of  warrant  or  power— p  278 

154.  Construction  and  operation  of  warrant  or  power— p  280 

155.  Second  confession  under  same  power — p  288 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

6 


49    C.J.S.  JUDGMENTS 

VI.  JUDGMENT  BY  CONFESSION— Continued 

C.  UITDER  WARRANT  OR  POWER  OP  ATTORNEY — Continued 

§  156.    Revocation  and  defeasance— p  288 

157.    Confession  under  void  or  lost  warrant — p  289 

D.  STATEMENT  OF  INDEBTEDNESS — p  289 

§  158.    Nature  and  necessity— p  289 
159.    Requisites  and  sufficiency — p  290 

E.  PROCEDURE  IN  OBTAINING  OR  ENTERING-  JUDGMENT — p  294 

§  160.    In  general— p  294 

161.  Jurisdiction  and  authority — p  295 

162.  Necessity  and  sufficiency  of  proof — p  297 

163.    Affidavit  as  to  bona  fides  of  confession— p  298 

164.  Nature,  form,  and  requisites  of  judgment  in  general — p  299 

165.  Entry  of  judgment — p  300 

166.    Time  of  entry— p  301 

167.  Amount  of  judgment— p  303 

F.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  OP  JUDGMEMNT — p  304 

§  168.  In  general— p  304 

169.  As  release  or  waiver  of  defects — p  305 

170.  Presumptions  supporting  judgment — p  306 

171.  Effect  of  invalidity— p  306 

172.  Estoppel  to  deny  validity— p  307 

VET.  JUDGMENT  ON  CONSENT,  OFFEB>  OR  ADMISSION— p  308 

§  173.  Consent— p  308 

174.  Right  and  authority  to  consent — p  309 

175.  Sufficiency  of  consent  or  agreement — p  311 

176.  Entry  of  judgment— p  312 

177.  Form  and  sufficiency  of  judgment — p  313 

178.  Construction,  operation,  and  effect — p  314 

179.  Offer— p  317 

180.  Authority  to  offer— p  318 

181.  Form  and  sufficiency  of  offer — p  318 

182.  Acceptance  or  rejection,  and  withdrawal  of  offer — p  319 

183.  Entry  of  judgment— p  320 

184.  Construction,  operation,  and  effect — p  320 

185.  Admission  in  pleading — p  321 

186.  Submission  on  agreed  statement  of  facts — p  323 

VEX  JUDGMENT  BY  DEFAULT— p  324 

A.    Isr  GENEBAL— p  324 

§  187.  What  constitutes  judgment  by  default— p  324 

188.  Constitutional  and  statutory  provisions7-p  326 

189.  Actions  in  which  authorized — p  326 

190.  In  whose  favor  default  may  be  taken— p  327 

191.  Against  whom  default  may  be  taken — p  328 

192.  Jurisdiction  in  general — p  331 

193.  Pleadings  to  sustain  judgment — p  336 

194.    Amendment— p  340 

195.  Grounds  for  judgment— p  341 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

7 


JUDGMENTS  49    C.J.S. 

VHI.  JUDGMENT  BY  DEFAULT— Continued 

A.  IN  GENERAL — Continued 

§  196.  Default  of  appearance— p  341 

197.  Withdrawal  of  appearance— p  342 

198.  Absence  from  trial  or  other  proceeding — p  343 . 

199.  Default  in  pleading— p  343 

200.  Operation  and  effect  of  default  and  judgment — p  355 

201.    Default  as  admission — p  357 

202. Right  to  notice  of,  and  participation  in,  further  proceedings — p  360 

203.    Waiver  of  default— p  361 

B.  PBOCEDTTBE  IN  TAKING  DEFAULT  AND  ENTERING  JUDGMENT — p  362 

§  204.  Power  of  court  in  general— p  362 

205.  Authority  and  duty  of  clerk— p  363 

206.  Preliminary  entry  of  default — p  365 

207.  Time  for  taking  default  and  entering  judgment — p  366 

208.  Application  for  judgment — p  370 

209.  Bond  or  recognizance  on  taking  judgment — p  372 

210.  Evidence— p  372 

211.    Proof  of  jurisdiction*!  facts— p  373 

212.    Proof  of  default— p  373 

213.    Proof  of  cause  of  action— p  374 

214.  Hearing,  determination,  and  relief — p  376 

215.  Form  and  requisites  of  judgment — p  380 

216.    Final  or  interlocutory — p  381 

217.    Recitals  and  record— p  382 

218.  Office  judgments— p  384 

IX.  JUDCtMENT  ON  MOTION  OR  SUMMARY  PROCEEDINGS— p  385 

§  219.  In  general— p  385 

220.  Cases  in  which  allowed— p  388 

221.  Against  whom  judgment  may  be  rendered — p  406 

222.  Procedure  in  general — p  407 

223.  Notice— p  409 

224.  Motion— p  412 

225.  Affidavits  and  other  evidence — p  413 

226.  Hearing  and  determination;   relief  awarded — p  429 

227.  Form,  requisites,  and  entry  of  judgment — p  432 

3L  AMENDING,    CORRECTING,  REVIEWING,  OPENING,  AND  VACATING  JUDGMENT— p  433 

A.  JURISDICTION  AND  POWER  GENERALLY— p  433 

§  228.    In  general— p  433 

229.  During  term— p  436 

230.  After  expiration  of  term — p  438 

231.  Where  terms  abolished— p  445 

232.  At  chambers  or  in  vacation — p  445 

233.  Authority  of  clerk— p  446 

234.  Judgments  subject  to  amendment  or  vacation — p  446 

235.  Jurisdiction  of  particular  courts  and  judges — p.  447 

B.  AMENDMENT  AND  CORRECTION— p  447 

§  236.    In  general— p  447 
237.    Clerical  and  formal  changes — p  449 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

8 


49    C.J.S.  JUDGMENTS 

X.  AMENDING,  CORRECTING,  REVIEWING,   OPENING,  AND  VACATING  JUDGMENT— Con- 
tinued 

B.  AMENDMENT  AND  CORRECTION — Continued 

§  238.  Judicial  and  substantial  changes — p  451 

239.  Particular  amendments  and  corrections — p  455 

240.  Supplying  omissions  generally — p  455 

241.  Striking  out  improper  or  erroneous  entries — p  455 

242.  Recitals  in  general — p  455 

243.  Conforming  judgment  to  verdict  or  findings — p  456 

244.  Parties— p  457 

245.  Process  and  appearance — p  458 

246.  Relief  awarded  in  general — p  458 

247.  Amount  of  recovery  and  allowance  of  interest — p  459 

248.  Costs  and  allowances — p  461 

249.  Other  errors  or  defects— p  462 

250.  Procedure  and  reliefr— p  464 

251.  Jurisdiction — p  466 

252.  Time  for  application — p  466 

253.  Parties— p  467 

254.  Notice— p  467 

255.  Contents  and  sufficiency  of  application — p  469 

256.  Evidence;   source  of  amendment  or  correction — p  470 

257.  — —  Hearing  and  determination  in  general — p  472 

258.  Allowing  amendment  nunc  pro  tune — p  473 

259.  — —  Discretion  of  court— p  475 

260.  Imposition  of  terms — p  475 

261.  Order— p  476 

262.  Mode  of  making  amendments — p  476 

263.  Operation  and  effect  in  general — p  476 

264.  Rights  of  third  persons— p  477 

C.  OPENING  AND  VACATING — p  478 

1.    In  General— $  478 

§  265.  In  general— p  478 

266.  Right  to  and  grounds  for  relief — p  479 

267.  Invalidity  of  judgment  in  general — p  480 

268.  Irregularity  of  judgment  in  general — p  484 

269.  Fraud  or  collusion — p  486 

270.  Perjury— p  489 

271.  Violation  of  agreement — p  490 

272.  Defenses  to  action — p  491 

273.  Newly  discovered  evidence — p  493 

274.  Errors  of  law— p  493 

275.  Errors  of  fact— p  495 

276.  Defects  and  objections  as  to  parties— p  496 

277.  Defects  and  objections  as  to  pleadings — p  497  , 

278.  Unauthorized,  inadvertent,  improvident,  or  premature  entry— p  499 

,279.  Disobedience  of  order  of  court  or  other  misconduct  of  party  or  coun- 
sel—p  499 

280.  Mistake,  inadvertence,  surprise,  excusable  neglect,  casualty  or  misfor- 
tune— p  500 

281.  Other  grounds— p  510 

282.  Defenses  to  relief— p  511 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 
40  C.J.S.- 2  9 


JUDGMENTS  49    C.J.S. 

X.  AMENDING,  CORRECTING-,  REVIEWING,  OPENING,  AND  VACATING-  JUDGMENT— Con- 
tinued 

C    OPENING  AND  VACATING — Continued 

1.  In  General — Continued 

§  283.    Other  remedies  available— p  Sll 

284.    Waiver  and  estoppel — p  512 

285.    Assignment  of  judgment  or  rights  thereunder— p  513 

2.  Proceedings  and  Relief — p  513 

§  286.     Nature  and  form  of  remedy — p  513 

287.    Vacation  on  court's  own  motion — p  521 

288.  Time  for  application — p  523 

289.  Requisites  and  sufficiency  of  application — p  533 

290.    Meritorious  cause  of  action  or  defense  in  general— p  53S 

291.    Proposed  answer — p  539 

292.  Answer  and  other  pleadings — p  539 

293.  Parties;   persons  by  and  against  whom  proceedings  may  be  brought — p  539 

294.  Notice  or  process — p  543 

295.  Affidavits  on  application — p  544 

296.  Counter-affidavits — p  545 

297.  Evidence— p  545 

298.  Status  of  judgment  pending  application — p.  548 

299.  Hearing  and  determination  in  general — p  548 

300.    Discretion  of  court— p  552 

301.  Relief  awarded— p  554 

302.    Partial  vacation— p  555 

303.    Terms  and  conditions — p  555 

304.  Findings— p  556 

305.  Order— p  557 

306.    Operation  and  effect  in  general — p  557 

307.    Restitution— p  560 

308.  Objections  and  exceptions — p  560 

309.  Vacation  and  review  of  order — p  560 

310.  Liabilities  on  bonds  given  in  proceedings  to  vacate — p  561 

D.  WRIT  OF  ERROR  CORAM  NOBIS — p  561 

§  311.    In  general — p  561 

312.  When  writ  lies— p  562 

313.  Proceedings  and  relief — p  568 

E.  ACTION  TO  REVIEW  JUDGMENT — p  572 

§  314.  In  general— p  572 

315.  Grounds  of  action  and  judgments  re  viewable — p  574 

316.  Jurisdiction  and  procedure  generally — p  575 

317.  Pleading  and  evidence — p  575 

318.  Hearing,  determination,  and  relief — p  577 

319.  Review  and  costs — p  577 

F.  CONPBSSBD  JUDGMENTS — p  578 

§  320.    Amendment— p  578 

321.  Opening  and  vacating — p  578 

322.    Jurisdiction  and  authority — p  582 

323.    Grounds— p  583 

324.    Meritorious  defenses — p  586 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

10 


49    C.J.S.  JUDGMENTS 

X.  AMENDING,  CORRECTING-,  REVIEWING,  OPENING,  AND  VACATING  JUDGMENT--Con- 

tinued 

F.  CONFESSED  JUDGMENTS — Continued 

§  325.    Affidavits  and  other  evidence — p  589 

326.    Hearing,  determination,  and  relief — p  593 

327.    Operation  and  effect  of  opening  or  vacating— p  597 

G.  JUDGMENTS  BY  CONSENT,  OFFER  AND  ACCEPTANCE,  AND  ON  MOTION  OR  SUMMARY  PBQCEED- 

INGS — p  598 

§  328.    Consent  judgments — p  598 

329.    Amendment— p  598 

330.  Opening  or  vacating — p  599 

331.  Judgments  on  offer  and  acceptance — p  604 

332.  Summary  judgments — p  605 

H.    JUDGMENTS  BY  DEFAULT — p  605 

§  333.  Opening,  amending,  and  vacating  generally — p  605 

'  334.  Right  to  and  grounds  for  opening  or  vacating — p  608 

335.  Judgment  on  constructive  service — p  641 

336.  Showing  meritorious  defense — p  642 

337.  Procedure  and  relief — p  650 

338.  Proceedings  in  cause  operating  to  open  default — p  688 

339.  Proceedings  after  opening  default — p  688 

340.    Defenses  available— p  689 

XL  EQUITABLE  BELIEF  AGAINST  JUDGMENT— p  690 

A.  IN  GENERAL — p  690 

§  341.    Nature  of  remedy  and  right  to  relief  in  general — p  690 

342.  Jurisdiction — p  694    . 

343.    Existence  of  or  resort  to  other  remedy;  inadequacy  of  remedy  at  law — 

p  695 

344.  Persons  entitled  to  relief— p  700 

345.  Persons  against  whom  relief  available — p  701 

346.  Judgments  against  which  relief  may  be  granted — p  701 

347.    By  confession  or  on  consent  or  offer — p  703 

348.    By  default— p  703 

349.  Meritorious  cause  of  action  or  defense — p  703 

B.  GROUNDS  K>R  RELIEF — p  706 

§  350.    In  general— p  706 

351.  Invalidity  of  judgment — p  709 

352.    Want  of  or  defects  in  process  or  service— p  710 

353.    False  return  of  service — p  711 

354.    Unauthorized  appearance — p  712 

355.  Payment  or  satisfaction  of  judgment — p  712 

356.  Errors  and  irregularities — p  713 

357.  Defects  or  objections  as  to  parties  or  pleadings — p  714 

358.  Objections  to  evidence— p  715 

359.  Error  in  amount  of  judgment  or  relief  granted — p  715 

360.  Irregular  rendition  or  entry — p  716 

361.  Defenses  not  interposed  in  former  action — p  716 

362.    .Equitable  defenses— p  720 

363.  Excuses  for  not  defending— p  720 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

11 


JUDGMENTS  49    C.J.S. 

XI.  EQUITABLE  RELIEF  AGAINST  JUDGMENT— Continued 

B.  GROUNDS  FOR  RELIEF — Continued 

§  364.  Ignorance  of  facts  or  law — p  722 

365.  Mistake  or  surprise — p  723 

366.  Accident  or  misfortune — p  725 

367.  Excusable  neglect— p  726 

368.  Negligence  or  misconduct  of  counsel — p  727 

369.  Matters  determined  in  original  action — p  729 

370.  Compelling  set-off  or  reduction  of  damages — p  730 

371.  Fraud,  perjury,  collusion,  or  other  misconduct— p  732 

372.  Fraud  or  concealment — p  732 

373.  Collusion— p  745 

374.  Perjury  and  subornation  of  perjury — p  745 

375.  Violation  of  agreement — p  748 

376.  Newly  discovered  evidence — p  749 

C.  PROCEDURE — p  751 

§  377.  Form  of  proceedings — p  751 

378.  Conditions  precedent — p  753 

379.  Time  to  sue  and  limitations — p  754 

380.  Defenses— p  756 

381.    Laches— p  757 

382.  Jurisdiction  of  particular  courts — p  759 

383.  Venue— p  760 

384.  Parties— p  761 

385.  Process  and  appearance — p  764 

386.  Release  of  errors — p  764 

387.  Preliminary  or  temporary  injunction — p  765 

388.  Pleading— p  767 

389.  Bill  or  complaint — p  767 

390.  Exhibits— p  776 

391.  Answer,  motion  to  dismiss,  and  demurrer — p  776 

392.  Issues,  proof,  and  variance — p  777 

393.  Evidence— p  778 

394.    Pleadings  as  evidence — p  785 

395.  Trial  or  hearing— p  786 

396.  Dismissal — p  787 

397.  Judgment  or  decree,  and  relief  awarded — p  787 

398.  Review  and  costs— p  790 

399.  Operation  and  effect  of  injunction — p  790 

400.  Damages  on  dissolution  of  injunction— p  791 

XH.  COLLATBEAL  ATTACK— p  792 

A* "  IN  GENERAL— p  792 

§  401.    General  rule— p  792 

402.  To  what  judgments  and  courts  rule  applies— -p  798 

403.  By  confession  or  on -consent  or  offer — p  800 

404.  By  default— p  800 

405.  In  criminal  cases — p  801 

406.  Judgments  and  orders  in  special  proceedings — p  802 

407.  Judgments  of  particular  courts  or  tribunals— p  802 

408.  What  constitutes  direct  or  collateral  attack— p  805 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

12 


49     C:  J.  S.  JUDGMENTS 

XTL  COLLATERAL  ATTACK— Continued 

A.  IN  GENERAL — Continued 

§  409.     Proceedings  to  enforce  judgment — p  813 

410.  Proceedings  to  prevent  enforcement  of  judgment — p  814 

411.  Separate  action  against  party  or  officer — p  816 

412.  Parties  affected  by  rule  against  collateral  attack — p  817 

413.  Parties  and  privies — p  817 

414.  Third  persons  in  general — p  818 

415.  Creditors — p  820 

B.  GROUNDS — p  820 

§  416.  Invalidity  of  judgment  generally — p  820 

417.  Insufficient  or  illegal  cause  of  action — p  820 

418.  Legal  disability  of  parties— p  821 

419.  Death  of  party  before  judgment — p  821 

420.  Disqualification  of  judge — p  821 

421.  Jurisdictional  defects — p  822 

422.  Want  of  or  defects  in  process  or  service — p  828 

423.  Defects  in  return  or  proof  of  service — p  830 

424.  Unauthorized  appearance — p  831 

425.  Presumptions  as  to  jurisdiction — p  831 

426.  Recitals  of  Jurisdictional  facts — p  843 

427.  Decision  of  court  as  to*  its  own  jurisdiction — p  849 

428.  Errors  and  irregularities — p  851 

429.  Defects  and  objections  as  to  parties — p  853 

430.  Defects  and  objections  as  to  pleadings — p  854 

431.  Irregularities  in  procedure — p  855 

432.  Objections  to  evidence — p  856 

433.  —  Defects  in  entry  or  contents  of  judgment — p  857 

434.  Fraud,  collusion,  or  perjury — p  859 

435.  Defenses  available  in  original  action — p  862 

CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  OP  JUDGMENT— p  862 

A.  CONSTRUCTION — p  862 

§  436.  In  general— p  862 

437.  Recitals — p  869 

438.  Pleadings— p  870 

439.  Verdict  or  findings — p  871 

440.  Parties— p  871 

441.  Issues— p  872 

442.  Recovery  and  relief — p  873 

443.  Conflict  in  record — p  874 

B.  OPERATION  AND  EFFECT — p  875 

§  444.  In  general— p  875 

445.  Conflicting  judgments — p  876 

446.  Time  of  taking  effect— p  876 

447.  Conditions  and  alternative  provisions — p  877 

448.  Extraterritorial  operation — p  878 

449.  Void  and  voidable  judgments — p  878 

450.  Partial  invalidity— p  881 

451.  Validating  void  judgment — p  882 

452.  Ratification  and  estoppel — p  883 

453.  Acceptance  by  prevailing  party  of  part  of  judgment — p  884 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

13 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


33V.  LDSN  OP  JUDGMENT— p  884 

§  454.  In  general— p  884 

455.  Nature  of  lien— p  885 

456.  Control  of  lien— p  887 

457.  Amount  of  lien— p  887 

458.  What  judgments  create  lien— p  887 

459.  Decrees  in  equity— p  888 

460.  Organization  and  character  of  court— p  889 

461.  Statutory  requirements  in  general — p  889 

462.  Transcript  or  abstract— p  889 

463.  Recording,  docketing,  and  indexing  judgment— p  896 

464.  Indexing— p  898 

465.  Sufficiency  to  create  lien— p  898 

466.  Commencement  of  lien— p  902 

467.  Lien  of  transferred  judgment— p  904 

468.  Necessity  of  issue  of  execution — p  904 

469.  Judgment  or  amendment  nunc  pro  tune — p  905 

470.  Effect  of  stay  of  execution — p  906 

471.  Property  affected  by  lien — p  906 

472.  Nature  of  property — p  906 

473.  Location  of  property — p  908 

474.  Property  previously  transferred— p  909 

475.  Property  fraudulently  conveyed — p  910 

476.  Lands  instantaneously  seized — p  910 

477.  After-acquired  property— p  911 

478.  Estate  or  interest  affected  by  lien — p  912 

479.  Equitable  interests  in  general — p  916 

480.  Interests  of  parties  to  executory  contract  of  sale— p  918 

481.  Trust  estates  and  legal  titles— p  920 

482.  Leaseholds— p  922 

483.  Priority  of  liens— p  923 

484.  Between  judgments — p  923 

485.  Between  judgment  and  conveyances  and  other  liens — p  926 

486.  Postponement  of  lien— p  938 

487.  Proceedings  for  determination  of  priority — p  940 

488.  Transfer  of  property  subject  to  lien— p  941 

489.  Duration  of  lien— p  944 

490.  As  against  junior  judgments — p  946 

491.  Death  of  judgment  debtor— p  946 

492.  Extending  lien— p  947 

493.  Issue  and  levy  of  execution — p  947 

494.  Revival  of  judgment — p  948 

495.  Suit  to  enforce  lien  or  to  subject  property;   action  on  judgment— p  949 

496.  Absence  of  debtor  from  state — p  949 

497.  Agreement  of  parties — p  950 

498.  Matters  preventing  enforcement  of  judgment — p  950 

499.  Loss,  release,  or  extinguishment  of  lien — p  951 

500.  By  release— p  953 

501.  Payment  or  satisfaction  of  judgment— p  953 

502.  Sale  under  execution — p  954 

503.  Stay  of  execution — p  954 

504.  Injunction  against  judgment — p  955 

505.  Receivership— p  955 

506.  Opening  or  vacating  judgment — p  955 

See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

14 


9    C.J.S.  JUDGMENTS 

XIV.  LIEN  OF  JUDaMENT— Continued 

§  507.    Waiver  and  estoppel— p  955 

508.    Destruction,  removal,  or  concealment  of  property— p  956 

509.    Appeal  or  writ  of  error — p  956 

510.  Remedies  of  creditor  after  termination  of  lien— p  957 

511.  Enforcement  of  lien— p  957 

XV.  ASSIGNMENT  OF  JUDGMENTS— p  961 

§  512.  Assignability  of  judgments — p  961 

513.  Future  judgments— p  963 

514.  Persons  who  may  assign  or  purchase — p  963 

515.  Mode  and  sufficiency  of  assignment — p  964 

516.  Equitable  assignments— p  967 

517.  Consideration— p  968 

518.  Recording— p  969 

519.  Operation  and  effect — p  969 

520.  Partial  assignments— p  971 

521.  Rights  and  liabilities  of  parties— p  972 

522.  As  to  judgment  debtor  in  general— p  972 

523.  As  affected  by  notice  to  debtor— p  975 

524.  As  affected  by  equities,  defenses,  and  agreements  between  original  par- 
ties—p  976 

525.  As  between  assignor  and  assignee— p  977 

526.  As  to  third  persons— p  978 

527.  Rights  incidental  to  assignment— p  979 

528.  Effect  of  reversal  or  vacation  after  assignment— p  981 

529.  Priority  of  assignments— p  982 

530.  Setting  aside  assignment— p  983 

XVI.  SUSPENSION  AND  REVIVAL  OF  JUDGMENT— p  983 

A.  IN  GENERAL— p  983 

§  531.    Suspension  or  stay  of  proceedings— p  983 
532.    Dormant  judgments— p  984 

B.  REVIVAL  OF  JUDGMENTS— p  989 

§  533.    Necessity— p  989      . 

534.    Death  of  party— p  989 

535.  Right  to  revive— p  991 

535.  Grounds  for  revival— p  991 

537.  Who  may  revive— p  991 

538.  Against  whom  revival  may  be  .had— p  992 

539.  Judgments  which  may  be  revived— p  994 

540.  Defenses  or  grounds  of  opposition— p  995 

541.  Jurisdiction  and  venue— p  999 

542.  Time  for  revival— p  999 

543.  Mode  of  revival— p  1002 

544.  Action  to  revive— p  1003 

545.  Action  of  debt— p  1004 

546.  Motion  to  revive— p  1004 

547.  Summons  to  show  cause — p  1005 

548.  • Scire  facias— p  1005 

549.  Operation  and  effect  of  revival— p  1019 


See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 

15 


JUDGMENTS  49    C.J.S. 

XVH.  PAYMENT,  SATISFACTION,  AND  DISCHARGE  OP  JUDGMENT— p  1021 

§  550.  Persons  to  whom  payment  may  be  made — p  1021 

551.  Clerk  of  court  or  other  officer — p  1022 

552.  Mode,  medium,  and  sufficiency  of  payment — p  1022 

553.  Tender— p  1024 

554.  Payment  by  joint  party  or  third  person — p  1025 

555.  Payment  by  joint  debtor — p  1025 

556.  Payment  by  suretjr — p  1027 

557.  Payment  by  stranger — p  1027 

558.  Payment  by  officer— p  1028 

559.  Evidence  of  payment — p  1028 

560.  Payment  as  question  of  law  or  fact — p  1034 

561.  Merger  of  judgments — p  1035 

562.  Assignment  as  extinguishment — p  1037 

563.  Release  or  discharge — p  1037 

564.  Joint  debtors— p  1039 

565.  Agreement  to  release  or  satisfy — p  1040 

566.  Set-off  of  judgment  against  judgment — p  1041 

567.  Persons  entitled  to — p  1043 

568.  Judgments  subject  to— p  1043 

569.  Proceedings  to  obtain — p  1048 

570.  Operation  and  effect— p  1050 

571.  Set-off  of  judgment  against  claim — p  1050 

572.  Set-off  of  claim  against  judgment — p  1052 

573.  Satisfaction  by  execution  or  enforcement — p  1054 

574.  Other  means  of  satisfaction — p  1057 

575.  Satisfaction  of  one  of  several  judgments  on  same  cause  of  action — |p  1057 

576.  Against  different  persons — p  1058 

577.  Operation  and  effect  of  satisfaction— p  1058 

578.  Recovery  of  payments — p  1059 

579.  Entry  of  satisfaction— p  1059 

580.  Satisfaction  piece— p  1060 

581.  Proceedings  to  compel — p  1060 

582.  Actions  and  penalties  for  failure  to  satisfy — p  1065 

583.  Effect— p  1066 

584.  Vacation  or  correction — p  1066 

XVULL  ENFORCEMENT  OP  JUDGMENTS— p  1071 

§  585.  In  general— p  1071 

586.  Enforcement  at  law — p  1072 

587.  Enforcement  in  equity — p  1074 

588.  Scire  facias  to  enforce — p  1076 

589.  Scire  facias  to  obtain  new  execution — p  1076 

590.  Proceedings  to  make  parties — p  1076      r-~  -- 

591.  Scire  facias  on  justice's  transcript — p  1077 


See  also  descriptive  word  index  in  the  back  of  this  Volume 
§§  592  to  End  in  Volume  5O 


16-24 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 
L  DEFINITION,  NATTJUE,  AND  KINDS 


§1 


§  l.    Definitions 

A  judgment  may  be  broadly  defined  as  the  decision 
or  sentence  of  the  law  given  by  a  court  or  other  tribunal 
as  the  result  of  proceedings  instituted  therein;  in  this 
sense  a  decision  of  any  court  is  a  judgment,  including 
courts  of  equity,  and  in  a  criminal  case  a  sentence  Is  a 
Judgment. 

In  its  broadest  sense  a  judgment  is  the  decision  or 


sentence  of  the  law  given  by  a  court  of  justice  or 
other  competent  tribunal  as  the  result  of  proceed- 
ings instituted  therein,1  or  the  final  consideration 
and  determination  of  a  court  on  matters  submitted 
to  it  in  an  action  or  proceeding,2  whether  or  not 
execution  follows  thereon.3  More  particularly  it 
is  a  judicial  determination  that,  on  matters  submit- 


1.  N.J. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Dor- 
man  v.  Usbe  Building  &  Loan 
Ass'n,  180  A.  413,  415,  115  N.J.Law 
837. 

Pa. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  In  re 
Kruska's  Estate,  7  Pa.Dist  &  Co. 
273,  275,  7  Nor  thumb.  L.J.  281. 

33  C.J.  p  1047  note  1. 

Particular  kinds  of  judgments  see 
infra  §§  8-12. 

Similar  definitions 

(1)  The  affirmance  by  law  of  legal 
consequences  attending  a  proved  or 
admitted  set  of  facts. — Berg  v.  Berg, 
132  P.2d  871,  872,  56  Cal.App.2d  495. 

(2)  The  conclusion  of  law  on  facts 
found,  or  admitted  by  the  parties,  or 
upon   their  default  in  the  course  of 
the  suit. 

Ky. — Bell  Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth,  61 
S.W.2d  879,  880.  250  Ky.  21. 

N.J. — Ross  v.  C.  D.  Mallory  Corpo- 
ration, 37  A.2d  766,  768,  132  N.J. 
Law  1. 

N.C.— Eborn  v.  Ellis,  35  S.E.2d  238, 
240,  225  N.C.  386. 

Tex.— Williams  v.  Tooke,  Civ.App., 
116  S.W.2d  1114,  1116,  error  dis- 
missed. 

33  C.J.  p  1047  note  1  [b]   (7). 

(3)  The  Judicial  determination  or 
sentence    of    a    court    on    a   matter 
within  its  jurisdiction. 

U.S.— U.  S.  v.  Hark,  Mass.,  64  S.Ct. 

359,    361,    320    U.S.    531,    88    L.Ed. 

290. 
Md.— Schmeizl   v.   Schmeizl,   42  A.2d 

106,  112. 

(4)  The  final  decision  or  sentence 
of  the  law  rendered  by  a  court  with 
respect  to  a  cause  within  its  juris- 
diction   and    coming    legally    before 
it  as  the  result  of  proper  proceedings 
rightly  instituted. 

Mass. — Morse    v.    O'Hara,    142    N.E. 

40,  41,  247  Mass.  183. 
Okl.— Prayer  v.  Grain,  163  P.2d  966, 

968. 

(5)  The  final  determination  of  the 
rights  of  the  parties. 

Okl.— Protest  of  Gulf  Pipe  Line  Co. 
of  Oklahoma,  32  P.2d  42,  43,  168 
Okl.  136 — Dresser  v.  Dresser,  22 
P.2d  1012.  1025,  164  Okl.  94. 

Utah. — Patterlck  v.  Carbon  Water 
Conservancy  Dist.,  145  P.2d  502, 
507. 

(6)  The  final  sentence  of  the  law 
on  matter  at  issue  in  the  case  as 
presented    by    the    record. — G.    Am- 


sinck  &  Co.  v.  Springfield  Grocer  Co., 
C.C.A.MO.,  7  P.2d  855,  858. 

(7)  The  pronouncement  of  a  judge 
on    issues    submitted    to    him. — Bell 
Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth,  61  S.W.2d  879, 
880,  250  Ky.  21. 

(8)  What  the  court  pronounces. — 
Linton  v.  Smith,  154  S.W.2d  643,  645, 
137  Tex.  479 — De  Leon  v.  Texas  Em- 
ployers Ins.  Ass'n,  Tex.Civ.App.,   159 
S.W.2d  574,  575,  error  refused — Lew- 
is v.  Terrell,  Tex.Civ.App.,  154   S.W. 
2d  151,  153,  error  refused — Jones  v. 
Sun    Oil    Co.,    Civ.App,,    145    S.W.2d 
615,   619,   reversed  on  other  grounds 
153    S.W.2d   571,    137   Tex.   353— Cor- 
bett   v.    Rankin    Independent    School 
Dist.,   Tex.Oiv.App.,   100    S.W.2d   113, 
115. 

(9)  A  number  of  cases  have  fol- 
lowed   Blacks  tone's    definition    of    a 
judgment  as  the  sentence  of  the  law 
pronounced   by  the   court   upon   the 
matter  contained  in  the  record. 
U.S.— Karl  Kiefer  Mach.  Co.  v.  TJ.  S. 

Bottlers  Machinery  Co.,  108  F.2d 
469,  470. 

111. — People  ex  rel.  Toman  v.  Crane, 
23  N.E.2d  337,  3'39,  372  111.  228— 
Blakeslee's  Storage  Warehouses  v. 
City  of  Chicago,  17  N.E.2d  1,  3,  369 
111.  480,  120  A.L.R.  715. 

Tex. — Williams  v.  Tooke,  Civ.App., 
116  S.W.2d  1114,  1120,  error  dis- 
missed. 

33  C.J.  p  1047  note  1  [a]. 

(10)  Other  similar  definitions. 
U.S. — Allegheny  County  v.  Maryland 

Casualty  Co.,  C.C.A.Pa.,  132  F.2d 
894,  897,  certiorari  denied  63  S.Ct 
981,  318  U.S.  787,  87  L.Ed.  1154. 

111. — General  Electric  Co.  v.  Gellman 
Mfg.  Co.,  48  N.E.2d  451,  318  111. 
App.  644. 

Ky. — Bell  Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth,  61 
S.W.2d  .879,  880,  250  Ky.  21. 

Miss.— Welch  v.  Kroger  Grocery  Co., 
177  So.  41,  42,  180  Miss.  89. 

N.C. — Lawrence  v.  Beck,  116  S.E. 
424,  426,  185  N.C.  196. 

Ohio.— State  ex  rel,  Curran  v. 
Brookes,  50  N.E.2d  995,  998,  142 
Ohio  St  107. 

Tex. — Jackson  v.  Slaughter,  Civ.App., 
185  S.W.2d  759,  761,  refused  for 
want  of  merit — Davis  v.  Hemphill, 
Civ.App.,  243  S.W.  691,  693. 

Wis. — In  re  Wisconsin  Mut  Ins.  Co., 
6  N.W.2d  33.0,  331,  241  Wis.  394, 
certiorari  denied  Hinge  v.  Duel,  63 

25 


S.Ct.    1157,   319  U.S.    747,'   87  L.Ed. 

1703. 

33  C.J.  p  1047  note  1  [b]. 
Synonymous  terms 

(1)  The  term  "judgment"  compre- 
hends  all   decrees  and   final    orders, 
rendered    by    a   court    of   competent 
jurisdiction,     which     determine     the 
rights  of  parties  affected  thereby. — 
In  re  Frey's  Estate,   40  N.E.2d  145» 
148,  139  Ohio  St.  354—33  C.J.  p  1047 
note  1   [c]   (5). 

(2)  Other     synonymous     terms. — 
Samuel  Goldwyn,  Inc.  v.  United  Ar- 
tists  Corporation,   C.C.A.Del.t   113   F. 
2d   703,    706—33   C.J.   p   1047   note   1 
CcL 

Mythical  case 

An  attempt  to  retain  the  right  to- 
pass  on  the  merits  of  a  mythical 
case  not  then  in  existence,  and  which 
will  exist  as  an  independent  suit,, 
when  and  if  it  comes  into  existence, 
is  not  a  "judgment"  as  that  term 
is  legally  defined. — Goldsmith  v. 
Salkey,  112  S.W.2d  165,  169,  131  Tex. 
139. 

2.  U.S.— Karl    Kiefer    Mach.    Co.    v. 
U.  S.  Bottlers  Machinery  Co.;  C.C. 
A.I11.,  108  F.2d  469,  470. 

111. — People  ex  rel.  Toman  v.  Crane, 
23  N.E.2d  337,  339,  372  111.  228— 
Blakeslee's  Storage  Warehouses  v. 
City  of  Chicago,  17  N.E.2d  1,  3* 
369  111.  480,  120  A.L.R.  715— Peo- 
ple ex  rel.  Klee  v.  Kelly,  32  N.E.2d 
923,  929,  309  111. App.  72— People- 
ex  rel.  Keeler  v.  Kelly,  32  N.E.2d 
922,  309  IlLApp.  133— People  ex 
rel.  Gallachio  v.  Kelly,  32  N.E.2d 
921,  909  IlLApp.  133— People  ex 
rel.  Clennon  v.  Kelly,  32  N.E.2oT 
921,  309  IlLApp.  133— People  ex 
rel.  Salomon  v.  Kelly,  32  N.E.2d 
920,  309  IlLApp.  133. 

Tex. — Fort  Worth  Acid  Works  v. 
City  of  Fort  Worth,  Civ.App.,  248: 
S.W.  822,  824,  affirmed  City  of  Fort 
Worth  v.  Fort  Worth  Acid  Works- 
Co.,  Cora.App.,  259  S.W.  919. 

Similarly  expressed 

Ohio. — State  ex  rel.  Curran  v. 
Brookes,  50  N.E.2d  995,  998,  142 
Ohio  St  107. 

Okl.— State  v.  Walton,  236  P.  629r 
632,  30  Okl.Cr.  416.  , 

33  C.J.  p  1047  note  1  [b3   (4). 

3.  pa,— Petition  of  Kariher,  181  X. 
265,  270,  284  Pa,  455. 


§1 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


ted  to  a  court  for  decision,  a  legal  duty  or  liability 
does  or  does  not  exist,4  or  that,  with  respect  to  a 
claim  in  suit,  no  cause  of  action  exists  or  that  no 
defense  exists.5 

In  the  broad  sense  here  denned,  a  decision  of  any, 
court  is  a  judgment,6  including  courts  of  equity,7 
admiralty,8  and  probate.9  The  judgment  of  a  court 
of  equity  or  admiralty,  however,  as  distinguished 
from  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  common  law,  is 
generally  known  as  a  "decree."10  In  a  criminal 
case  a  sentence  is  a  judgment.11  In  a  narrower 
sense  the  term  "judgment"  is  limited  to  a  decision 
of  a  court  of  law.12 

Under  codes.  Under  most  codes  of  procedure, 
judgments  are  defined  in  substance  as  the  final  de- 
termination of  the  rights  of  the  parties  in  an  ac- 
tion or  proceeding.13  Under  codes  abolishing  the 
distinction  between  actions  at  law  and  suits  in  eq- 
uity, a  decree  is  included  in  the  code  definition  of 
a  judgment,  and  the  final  determination  of  a  cause 


is  a  judgment  whether  the  relief  granted  is  equita- 
ble or  legal.14  Indeed  the  terms  "judgment"  and 
"decree"  are  more  or  less  synonymous  and. inter- 
changeable in  code  practice.15 

An  "adjudication"  is  a  judgment  or  the  entry  of 
a  decree  by  a  court  with  respect  to  the  parties  in  a 
case.16 

§  2.    General  Nature 

A  Judgment  is  a  judicial  act  which  settles  the  is- 
sues, fixes  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  the  parties,  and 
determines  the  proceeding,  and  it  is  regarded  as  the 
sentence  of  the  law  pronounced  by  the  court  on  the  ac- 
tion or  question  before  it. 

A  judgment  is  the  judicial  act  of  a  court17  by 
which  it  accomplishes  the  purpose  of  its  creation.18 
It  is  a  judicial  declaration  by  which  the  issues  are 
settled19  and  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  the  parties 
are  fixed  as  to  the  matters  submitted  for  decision.20 
In  other  words,  a  judgment  is  the  end  of  the  law;21 
its  rendition  is  the  object  for  which  jurisdiction  is 


4.    Wash.— In  re  Clark,  IffS  P.2d  577, 

580. 
B.    Okl.— Frayer  v.    Grain,    163    P.2d 

966,  968. 

6.  111.— Patterson   v.    Scott,    33    111. 
App.  348,  affirmed  31  N.E.  433,  143 
111.  138. 

33  C.J.  p  1048  note  2. 

7.  Gal. — Coleman    v.     Los     Angeles 
County,  182  P.  440,  180  Cal.  714. 

33  C.J.  p  1048  note  3. 

8.  U.S. — IT.  S.  v.  Wonson,  C.C.Mass., 
28  F.Cas.No.16,750,  1  Gall.  5. 

9.  Ohio.— In  re  Frey's  Estate,  40  N. 
E.2d  145,   148,   139  Ohio   St.   354. 

33  C.J.  p  1048  note  5. 

10.  U.S. — Lamson  v.  Hutchings,  111., 
118  F.  321,  323,  55  C.C.A.  245,  cer- 
tiorari  denied  23  S.Ct.  853,  189  U. 
S.  514,  mem,  4  L.Ed  924. 

33  C.J.  p  1049  note  6.  . 

"Decree"  defined  see  Equity  §  580. 

11.  Wash.— In    re    Clark,    163    P.2d 
577,  581. 

33  C.J.  p  1049  note  8. 

12.  Cal. — Coleman    v.    Los    Angeles 
County,  182  P.  440,  180  Cal.  714. 

33  C.J.  p  1049  note  9. 

13.  U.S. — G.     Amsinck     &     Co.     v. 
Springfield    Grocer   Co.,    C.C.A.Mo., 
7  F.2d  855,  858. 

Ark. — Wann  v.  Reading  Co.,  108  S. 
W.2d  899,  901,  194  Ark.  541. 

Idaho.— State  v.  McNichols,  115  P. 
2d  104,  107,  62  Idaho  616. 

Iowa.— Whittier  v.  Whittler,  23  N*.W. 
2d  435,  440. 

Ky. — Bell  Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth,  61 
S.W.2d  879,  880,  250  Ky.  21.' 

I/a. — Lacour  Plantation  Co.  v.  Jewell, 
173  So.  761,  763,  186  La.  1055. 

Mont. — State  ex  rel.  Meyer  v.  Dis- 
trict Court  of  Fourth  Judicial  Dis- 
trict in  and  fof  Missoula  County, 


57  P.2d  778,  780,  102  Mont.  222. 
N.Y. — Wood  v.  City  of  Salamanca,  45 

N.E.2d    443,    445,    289    N.T.    279. 
N.D. — Universal  Motors  v.  Coman,  15 

N.W.Sd  73,  73  N.D.  337. 
33  C.J.  p  1049  note  10. 

14.  Mont. — Raymond  v.  Blancgrrass, 
93  P.  648,  36  Mont.  449,  15  L.R.A., 
tf.S.,   976. 

33  C.J.  p  1050  note  11. 

15.  Wash.— Smith  v.   Smith,   115  P. 
166,  167,  63  Wash.  288. 

33  C.J.  p  1050  note  12. 

16.  U.S. — Samuel    Goldwyn,    Inc.    v. 
United  Artists  Corporation,  C.C.A. 
Del.,  113  F.2d  703,  706. 

Hearing 

An  "adjudication"  essentially  im- 
plies a  hearing  by  a  court,  after  no- 
tice, of  legal  evidence  on  the  factual 
issue  involved. — Genzer  v.  Fillip, 
Tex.Civ.App.,- 134  S.W.2d  730,  732,  er- 
ror dismissed,  judgment  correct. 

17.  111. — People    ex    rel.    Toman    v. 
Crane,   23  N.E.2d  337,  339,   372  111. 
228 — Blakeslee's      Storage     Ware- 
houses v.  City  of  Chicago,  17  N.E. 
2d    1,    3,    369    111.    480,    120    A.L.R. 
715. 

N.J. — Dorman    v.    Usbe    Building    & 
Loan   Ass'n,   180   A.   413,   415,    115 
N.J.Law  337. 
Determination  of  Judge 

Judgments  are  the  solemn  deter- 
minations of  judges  on  subjects  sub- 
mitted to  them,  and  a  judgment  is 
not  what  may  be  rendered,  but  what 
is  considered  and  delivered  by  the 
court. — Eborn  v.  Ellis,  35  S.B.2d  238, 
225  N.C.  386. 
Fiat 

'A  judgment  is  a  fiat  of  a  court, 
settling  the  rights  of  the  parties, 
and,  however  unjust,  erroneous,  or 

26 


illegal  the  settlement  may  be,  the 
parties  can  claim  under  it  only 
that  which,  by  its  terms,  the  judg- 
ment awards. — Lacaze  v.  Hardee,  La. 
App.,  7  So.2d  719,  724. 

18.  Okl.— Protest  of  Gulf  Pipe  Line 
Co.   of  Oklahoma,  32   P.2d   42,   43, 
168  Okl.  136. 

Purpose 

(1)  Judgments    are    judicial    acts 
with  the  primary  objective  in  view 
of  concluding  controversies  with  as 
high  a  degree  of  exact  justice  as  it 
is  humanly  possible  to  do. — Jackson 
v.   Slaughter,   Tex.Civ.App.,  185  S.W. 
2d  759,  761,  refused  for  want  of  mer- 
it. 

(2)  Purpose    of    every    judgment 
should    be    to    limit    litigation    and 
clearly  establish  rights  of  parties  as 
found  by  courts. — Cameron  v.  Feath- 
er River  Forest  Homes,  33  P.2d  884, 
139  CaLApp.  373. 

19.  Tex. — Lewis  v.  Terrell,  Civ.App., 
154  S.W.2d  151,  153,  error  refused. 

Imposed  in  invitum 

A  judgment  is  usually  imposed  in 
invitum,  although  it  may  be  for  the 
enforcement  of  an  indebtedness  pre- 
viously contracted. — Cherey  v.  City 
of  Long  Beach,  26  N.E.2d  945,  282  N. 
T.  382,  127  A.L.R.  1210. 
Opinion  and  adjudication 

Judgment  reciting  in  substance 
that  court,  considering  proof  and 
pleadings,  was  of  opinion  and  so 
adjudged  that  defendant  was  indebt- 
ed to  plaintiff  in  certain  sum  with 
interest  and  costs  was  "judgment." — 
Bell  Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth,  61  S.W.2d 
879,  250  Ky.  21. 

20.  Utah. — Adams  v.  Davies,  156  P. 
2d  207,  209. 

21.  Kan.— Corpus    Juris    auoted    in 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


conferred  and  exercised,22  and  it  is  the  power  by 
means  of  which  a  liability  is  enforced  against  the 
debtor's  property.23  A  judicial  judgment  is  not 
necessarily  a  judgment  for  money  or  thing  enforce- 
able by  execution  or  other  process;  it  may  be  a 
final  and  conclusive  determination  of  a  status,  or  a 
right,  or  a  privilege,  or  the  basis  of  action.2*  A 
judgment  is  neither  an  action  nor  a  special  proceed- 
ing, but  is  the  determination  of  an  action  or  pro- 
ceeding.26 

A  judgment  is  the  sentence  of  the  law  on  the  ul- 
timate facts  admitted  by  the  pleadings  or  proved  by 
the  evidence.26  It  is  not  a  resolve  or  decree  of  the 
court,  but  the  sentence  of  the  law  prpnounced  by 
the  court  on  the  action  or  question  before  it.27  It 
must  be  based  solely  on  the  legal  rights  of  the  liti- 
gants and  not  on  the  result  of  the  litigation.28 

A  judgment  constitutes  the  considered  opinion  of 
the  court29  and  is  a  solemn  record30  and  formal  .ex- 


pression and  evidence  of  the  actual  decision  of  a 
lawsuit.31  The  precedent  or  draft  for  judgment 
may  not  be  treated  as  a  judgment.32 

Vested  right  of  property.  A  judgment  may  con- 
stitute a  vested  right  of  property  in  the  judgment 
creditor33  within  the  protection  of  constitutional 
provisions  discussed  in  Constitutional  Law  §§  271- 
272. 

§  3.    Entirety  of  Judgments 

A  judgment  is  an  entirety. 

It  has  generally  been  held  to  be  the  rule  that  a 
judgment  must  be  treated  as  an  entirety.34  The  ef- 
fect of  this  rule  as  requiring  that  a  judgment  stand 
or  fall  as  a  whole,  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  a  judgment  which  is  partially  invalid  may  be 
enforced  as  far  as  it  is  valid,  are  discussed  infra  § 
450. 


Kansas  City  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  An- 
thony, 52  P.2d  1208,  1211,  142  Kan. 
670. 

Tex. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Wil- 
liams v.  Tooke,  Civ.App.,  116  S.W. 
2d  1114.  1116,  error  dismissed. 

23  C.J.  p  1051  note  19. 

A  Judgment  is  the  law's  last  word 
in  a  judicial  controversy. 
U.S.— Karl    Kiefer    Mach.    Co.    v.    TJ. 

S.   Bottlers   Machinery  Co.,   C.C.A. 

111.,  108  F.2d  469,  470. 
Ala.— Hudson  v.  Wright,   51  So.  389, 

164  Ala.  298,  137  Am.S.R.  55. 
111. — People  ex  rel.  Toman  v.  Crane, 

28  N.B.2d  337,  339,  372  111.  228— 
,  Blakeslee's  Storage  Warehouses  v. 

City  of  Chicago,  17  N.B.2d  1,  3,  369 

111.  480,  120  A.L.R.  715. 
N.Y.— Steinberg  v.  Mealey,  33  N.Y.S. 

2d  650,  263  App.Div.  479. 

22.  Kan. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Kansas  City  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  An- 
thony, 52  P.2d  1208,  1211,  142  Kan. 
670. 

Tex.— Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Wil- 
liams v.  Tooke,  Civ.App.,  116  S.W. 
2d  1114,  1116,  error  dismissed. 

33  C.OT.  p  1051  note  20. 

23.  Kan. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    In. 

Kansas  City  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  An- 
thony, 52  P.2d  1208,  1211,  142  Kan. 
670. 

N.J.— Nichols  v.  Dissler,  81  N.J.Law 
461,  473,  86  AmJX  219. 

N.T.— Steinberg  v.  Mealey,  38  N.T.S. 
2d  650,  263  App.Div.  479. 

Tex.— Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Wil- 
liams v.  Tooke,  Civ.App.,  116  S.W. 
2d  1114,  1116,  error  dismissed. 

Existence  and  enforcement  of  indebt- 
edness 

Judgment  Is  credit,  chose  in  ac- 
tion, or  incorporeal  right,  which  de- 
clares existence  of  indebtedness, 


fixes  amount  due  and  owing,  and  pro- 
vides means  for  enforcing  payment 
thereof,  although  it  does  not  create, 
add  to,  or  detract  from  debt. — Salter 
v.  Walsworth,  La.App.,  167  So.  494. 

24.  U.S.— In  re  Frischer  &  Co.,   16 
Ct.gust.App.  191. 

Affirmation  of  liattlity 

A  judgment  is  merely  the  affirma- 
tion of  a  liability,  and  leaves  the 
parties  to  pursue  remedies  provided 
by  law. — San  Luis  Power  &  Water 
Co.  v.  Trujillo,  26  P.2d  537,  540.  98 
Colo.  385. 

25.  Iowa.— Gray    v.    Iljff,    30    Iowa 
195,  appeal  dismissed  14  S.Ct.  1168, 
154    U.S.    589,   38   L.Bd.   1088. 

"Action"  as  including  judgment  see 

Actions  §  1  a  (1)  (c). 
"Proceeding"       distinguished       from 

"judgment"  see  Actions  §  1  h  (1) 

(b). 

26.  Kan. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Kansas  City  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  An- 
thony, 52  P.2d  1208,  1211,  142  Kan. 
670. 

N.C.— Lawrence  v.  Beck,  116  S.E.  424, 

185  N.C.  196. 

It  is  a  conclusion  of  law  from 
facts  proved  or  admitted  in  suit — 
Bell  v.  State  Industrial  Accident 
Commission,  74  P.2d  65,  157  Or.  653. 

27.  U.S. — G.     Amsinck     &     Co.     v. 
Springfield   Grocer   Co.,    C.C.A.MO., 
7  P.2d  855. 

33  C.J.  p  1051  note  24. 

It  applies  the  law  to  past  or  pres- 
ent facts 

U.S. — Oklahoma  City,  Okl.,  v.  Dolese, 
C.C.A.Okl.,  48  P.2d  734. 

Conn. — Eastern  Oil  Refining  Co.  v. 
Court  of  Burgesses  of  Wallingford, 
36  A.2d  586,  130  Conn.  606. 

27 


28.  R.I. — Cleveland   v.    Jencks   Mfg. 
Co.,   171  A.  917,  54  R.I.  218. 

Set-off  of  errors 

A  correct  judgment  cannot  be  pro- 
duced by  a  set-off  of  errors. — Eber- 
hardt  v.  Bennett,  137  S.E.  64,  163 
Ga.  796. 

29.  Tex. — Jackson  v.  Slaughter,  Civ. 
App.,   185  S.W.2d  759,  761,  refused 
jfor  want  of  merit. 

30.  N.J.— Dorman  v.  Usbe  Building 
&  Loan  Ass'n,  180  A.  413,  415,  115 
N.XLaw  -337. 

31.  Cal. — Gossman  v.   Gossman,   126 
P.2d    178,    185,    52   Cal.App.2d   184. 
"There  are  two  necessary  elements 

in  any  valid  judgment  or  order  of 
a  court;  (a)  The  court's  decision  or 
determination,  usually  evidenced  by 
some  oral  statement  or  pronounce- 
ment of  the  court,  but  often  by  a 
written  opinion,  direction  or  decree; 
and  (b)  the  enrollment  or  entry  by 
the  clerk  of  the  court's  action,  or 
the  essential  part  of  it,  upon  the 
order  book  or  record  of  the  court. 
The  first  element  is  judicial;  the 
latter  clerical.  The  former  involves 
discretion;,  the  latter  obedience." — 
Happy  Coal  Co.  v.  Brashear,  92  S.W. 
2d  23,  28,  263  Ky.  257. 

32.  Ark. — Wtann  v.  Beading  Co.,  108 
S.W.2d  899,  194  Ark.  541. 

33.  N.T. — Livingston  v.   Livingston, 
66  N.E.  123,  173  N.T.  377.  93  Am. 
S.R.  600,  61  L.R.A.  800. 

33  C.J.  p  1059  note  93. 

34.  111.— Holer  v.  Kaplan,   145  N.E. 
243,  31$  111.  448— Corpus  Juris  cit- 
ed in  Coyle  v.  Velie  Motors  Cor- 
poration, 27  N.E.2d  60,  63,  305  111. 
App.  135. 

Mo. — Neal  v.  Curtis  &  Co.  Mfg.  Co., 

41    S.W.2d   543,    328   Mo.   389. 
33  C.J.  p  1051  note  25. 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


§  4.    — _  Distinguished  from  Decisions  and 
Findings 

As  a  general  rule,  decisions,  opinions,  findings,  or 
verdicts  do  not  constitute  a  judgment  or  decree  but 
merely  form  the  basis  on  which  the  Judgment  is  subse- 
quently to  be  rendered. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  decisions,  opinions,  or  find- 
ings of  a  court,35  referee,36  administrative  board,87 
or  committee58  do  not  constitute  a  judgment  or  de- 
cree, but  merely  form  the  basis  on  which  the  judg- 
ment is  subsequently  to  be  rendered.39  Under  some 


statutes,  however,  the  word  "decision"  is  used  as  the 
equivalent  of  "judgment"  and  "decree,"40  and  is 
distinguished  from  the  term  "opinion"  in  that  the 
latter  term  refers  to  a  statement  of  reasons  on 
which  the  decision  or  judgment  rests.41 

-  A  verdict  is  not  a  judgment,  but  only  the  basis 
for  a  judgment,  which  may,  or  may  not,  be  entered 
on  it.42  A  finding  is  not  a  judgment  any  more  than 
is  the  verdict  of  a  jury.43  Such  findings  or  deci- 
sion amount  only  to  an  order  for  judgment44  and 


35.  U.S.— -Baxter  v.  City  and  County 
of  Dallas  Levee  Improvement 
Dist.,  C.C.A.TCX.,  131  F.2d  434— 
G.  Amslnck  &  Co.  v.  Springfield 
Grocer  Co.,  C.C.A.MO.,  7  F.2d  855 
— McGhee  v.  Leitner,  D.C.Wis.,  41 
F.Supp.  674. 

Ala, — Cooper  v.  Owen,  161  So.  98,  230 
Ala.  316. 

Cal.— El  Centro  Grain  Co.  v.  Bank  of 
Italy  Nat.  Trust  &  Savings  Ass'n, 
11  P.2d  650,  123  Cal.App.  6G4— 
Hume  v.  Lindholm,  258  P.  1003,  85 
Cal.App.  80. 

Colo.— First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mulich, 
266  P.  1110,  83  Colo.  518. 

Idaho. — Blaine  County  Inv.  Co.  v. 
Mays,  15  P.2d  734,  52  Idaho  381. 

Iowa.— Shaw  v.  Addison,  18  N.W.2d 
796 — Creel  v.  Hammans,  5  N.W.2d 
109,  232  Iowa  95 — In  re  Evans* 
Estate,  291  N.W.  460,  228  Iowa  908. 

La. — Delahoussaye  v.  I>.  M.  Glazer 
&  Co.,  App.,  182  So.  146,  reheard 
185  So.  644— Miller  v.  Morgan's  Da. 
&  T.  R.  R.  &  S.  S.  Co.,  1  La.App. 
267. 

Me. — Jones  v.  Jones,  8  A.2d  141,  136 
Me.  238. 

Mich.— Dolenga  v.  Lipka,  195  N.W. 
90,  224  Mich.  276. 

Mont. — Corpus  Juris  Quoted  in  Con- 
way  v.  Fabian,  89  P.2d  1022,  1028, 
108  Mont.  287,  certiorari  denied 
Fabian  v.  Conway,  60  S.Ct  94, 
308  U.S.  578,  84  L.Ed.  484— State 
ex  rel.  King  v.  District  Court  of 
Third  Judicial  Dist.,  86  P.2d  755, 
107  Mont,  476 — Corpus  Juris  gnot- 
ed  in  Galiger  v.  McNulty,  260  P. 
401,  403,  80  Mont.  339. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  cited,  in,  Davis  v. 
Baum,  133  (P.2d  889,  891,  192  Okl. 
85 — Lee  v.  Epperson,  32  P.2d  309, 
168  Okl.  220. 

Tex.— Permian  Oil  Co.  v.  Smith,  73 
S.W.2d  490,  129  Tex.  413,  111  A.L. 
R.  1152,  rehearing  denied  107  S.W. 
2d  564,  129  Tex,  413,  111  A.L.R. 
1175— Davis  v.  Hemphill,  Civ.App., 
243  S.W.  691. 

33  C.J.  p  1052  note  33. 

"Decision"   and    "opinion"    of    court 
generally  defined  see  Courts  §  181 
a. 
The  mental  conclusion  of  the  judge 

presiding    at   a   trial,    the    oral   an- 
nouncement of  such  conclusion,  his 

written  memorandum  entered  in  the 

calendar,  or  the  abstract  entered  in 


the  judgment  docket  do  not  consti- 
tute a  judgment. — Ranee  v.  Gaddis, 
284  N.W.  468,  478,  226  Iowa  531— 
Lotz  v.  United  Food  Markets,  283  N. 
W.  99,  101,  225  Iowa  1397. 
Actual  sentence  of  law 

Judgment  purports  to  be  actual 
and  absolute  sentence  of  law,  as 
distinct  from  mere  finding  that  one 
of  parties  is  entitled  to  judgment,  or 
from  direction  to  effect  that  judg- 
ment may  be  entered. — American 
Motorists'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Central  Garage, 
169  A.  121,  86  N.H.  302. 

An,  orally  expressed  opinion,  or 
finding  by  a  judge  does  not  consti- 
tute a  judgment. — Moffott  v.  Lewis, 
11  P.2d  397,  123  Oal.App.  307—33  C. 
J.  p  1052  note  33  [c]. 
Inconsistency 

Decree  was  not  void  because  find- 
ings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law 
were  inconsistent  with  decretal  por- 
tion since  findings  do  not  constitute 
the  judgment. — Higley  v.  Kinsman, 
Iowa,  216  N.W.  673. 

The  Judge's  minutes  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  the  judgment  or  decree 
rendered  by  the  court,  but  are  mere- 
ly a  memorandum  of  the  decision 
made  by  trial  judge  on  his  docket 
for  guidance  of  the  clerk  in  entering 
the  decree  on  the  journal. — Ex  parte 
Nikl'aus,  13  N.W.2d  655,  144  Neb.  503. 
38.  Fla. — Demens  v.  Poyntz,  6  So. 

261,  25  Fla.  654. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  34—53  C.J.  p  757 

notes  32-34* 

37.  Md. — Dal     Maso    v.     Board     of 
Com'rs  of  Prince  George's  County, 
34  A.2d  464,  182  Md.  200. 

38.  Conn. — Cothren   v.    Olms ted,    18 
A.  254.  57  Conn.  329. 

39.  U.S. — G.     Amsinck     &     Co.     v. 
Springfield    Grocer   Co.,    C.C.A.Mo., 
7  F.2d  855,  858— Corpus  Juris  cited 
in  Roessler  &  Hasslacher  Chemi- 
cal  Co.  v.    U.    S.,    13   Ct.Cust.App. 
451,  455. 

D.C. — Lambros  v.  Young,  145  F.2d 
341,  79  U.S.App.D.C.  247.  . 

Idaho. — Blaine  County  Inv.  Co.  v. 
Mays,  15  P.2d  734,  52  Idaho  381. 

Mont.— Lewis  v.  Lewis,  94  P.2d  211, 
109  Mont.  42 — Corpus  Juris  quoted 
in  Conway  v.  Fabian,  89  P.2d  1022, 
1028,  108  Mont.  287,  certiorari  de- 
nied Fabian  v.  Conway,  60  S.Ct  94, 

28 


308  U.S.  578,  84  L.Ed.  484— Corpus 
Juris  Quoted  in  Galiger  v.  McNul- 
ty, 260  P.  401,  403,  80  Mont.  339. 
N.H. — American   Motorists'    Ins.    Co. 
v.  Central  Garage,  169  A.   121,   86 
N.H.  362. 
Okl. — Moronoy   v.    Tannehill,    215    P. 

938,  90  Okl.  224. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  36. 
"Decision"   synonymous  with  "opin- 
ion" 

"Decision,"  as  used  in  statute  pro- 
viding that  a  decision  of  a  depart- 
ment of  supreme  court  shall  not  be- 
come final  until  thirty  days  after  fil- 
ing thereof,  is  synonymous  with- 
"opinion." — In  re  Brown's  Guvardlan- 
ship,  107  P.2d  1104,  6  Wash.2d  215. 

40.  U.S.— Rogers    v.    Hill,    N.T.,    53: 
S.Ct.   731,   734,  289  U.S.   582,   77  L. 
Ed.  1385. 

41.  U.S. — Rogers  v.  Hill,  supra. 
Decision  based  on  findings 

Decision  of  court  based  on  findings- 
within  statute  requiring  such  deci- 
sion, when  filed,  amounts  to  a  rendi- 
tion of  a  judgment,  which  is  a  ju- 
dicial act. — McKannay  v.  McKannay, 
230  P.  218,  68  CaLApp.  709. 

42.  Del. — Nelson  v.  Canadian  Indus- 
trial Alcohol  Co.,  189  A.  691,  8  W. 
W.Harr.   165,  affirmed   197  A.  477,, 
9  W.W.Harr.  184. 

111. — People     ex     rel.     Wakcfield    v. 

Montgomery,  6  N.B.2d  868,  365  111.. 

478— Mitchell  v.  Bareckson,  250  111. 

App,  508. 
N.T. — Fuentes   v.    Mayorga,    7    Daly 

103,  104. 
Utah. — Ellinwood  v.  Bennion,  276  P. 

159,    73    Utah   563. 

43.  111. — Central    Republic    Bank    & 
Trust  Co.  v.  Bent,  281  111. App.  365. 

Mont. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Gali- 
ger  v.    McNulty,    260   P.    401,   403, 
80  Mont.  229. 
Tex. — Davis    v.    Hemphill,    Civ. App.,. 

243  S.W.  691. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  38. 
Pact  findings 

Although  fact  findings  are  proper,, 
only  decretal  portion  of  decree  ad- 
judicates parties'  rights.— Higley  v« 
Kinsman,  Iowa,  216  N.W.  673. 

44.  Mont—Corpus   Juris   quoted   in. 
Galiger   v.    McNulty,    260    P.    401* 
403,  80  Mont.  229. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


are  subject  to  modification  or  change  until  embodied 
in  a  definitive  written  order  of  the  court.45 

§  5.    Distinguished  from  Rules  and  Or- 
ders 

Judgments  generally  are  distinguished  from  rules  or 
orders  in  that  a  judgment  is  the  final  determination  of 
the  rights  of  the  parties  ending  the  suit  whereas  a  rule 
or  order  is  an  interlocutory  determination  of  some  sub- 
sidiary or  collateral  matter,  not  disposing  of  the  merits. 

As  a  general  rule,  judgments  are  to  be  distin- 
guished from  orders  or  rules;  one  does  not  in- 
clude the  other.46  However,  certain  orders  have 
sometimes  been  denominated  as  judgments,47  and 
it  has  been  held  that  the  character  of  an  instru- 
ment, whether  a  judgment  or  an  order,  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  its  contents  and  substance,  and  not  by 
its  title.48  As  distinguished  from  a  judgment,  an 


order  is  the  mandate  or  determination  of  the  court 
on  some  subsidiary  or  collateral  matter  arising  in  an 
action,  not  disposing  of  the  merits,  but  adjudicating 
a  preliminary  point  or  directing  some  step  in  the 
proceedings;49  and  the  term  is  commonly  defined 
in  codes  of  procedure  as  every  direction  of  a  court 
or  judge,  made  or  entered  in  writing,  and  not  in- 
cluded in  a  judgment.50  A  judgment,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  the  determination  of  the  court  on  the  issue 
presented  by  the  pleadings  which  ascertains  and 
fixes  absolutely  and  finally  the  rights  of  the  parties 
in  the  particular  suit  with  relation  to  the  subject 
matter  in  litigation,  and  puts  an  end  to  the  suit51 
The  distinguishing  characteristic  of  a  judgment  is 
that  it  is  final,52  while  that  of  an  order,  when  it  re- 
lates to  proceeding  in  an  action,  is  that  it  is  inter- 
locutory,53 although  there  are  so-called  interlocu- 


Okl. — Lee   v.  Epperson,   32  P.2d  309, 

168  Okl.  220. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  39. 

45.  Okl. — Lee  v.  Epperson,  supra. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  40. 
Reversal  of  oral  decision 

Court  may  enter  formal  written 
order  contrary  to  prior  oral  decision. 
— State  ex  rel.  Mountain  Develop- 
ment Co.  v.  Superior  Court  for 
Pierce  County,  67  P.2d  861,  190 
Wash.  183. 

46.  Ala. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Mt. 
Vernon-Woodberry  Mills   v.  Union 
Springs    Guano    Co.,    155    So.    716, 
717,  229  Ala.  91. 

III.— Robinson   v.    Steward,    252    HI. 

App.  203. 
Ohio.— McMahon  v.   Keller,   11   Ohio 

App.  410. 
Okl.— Foreman  v.  Riley,  211  P.  495, 

88  Okl.  75. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  41. 

Administrative  regulations  pursu- 
ant to  statutory  authority  are  gen- 
erally legislative  and  do  not  have  at- 
tributes of  judicial  judgment  or  de- 
cree.— Sparkman  v.  County  Budget 
Commission,  137  So.  809,  103  Fla.  242. 

47.  Mont. — State    ex   rel.    Meyer    v. 
District  Court  of  Fourth  Judicial 
Dist.  in  and  for  Missoula  County, 
57    P.2d   778,    102    Mont    222. 

Ohio.— Continental   Automobile   Mut. 

Ins..  Co.  v.  Jacksick,  188  N.E.  662, 

46  Ohio  App.  344. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  42. 

"Final  order"  as  defined  by  stat- 
ute is  comprehended  within  term 
"judgment."— -Continental  Automo- 
bile Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Jacksick,  supra. 
Dismissal  for  failure  to  prosecute 
action 

An  order  dismissing  plaintiffs'  ac- 
tion for  failure  to  bring  it  to  trial 
within  five  years  after  filing  of  com- 
plaint was  a  judgment. — Colby  v. 
Pierce.  62  P.2d  778,  17  Cal.App.2d 


Final  disposition  of  cause 

First  order  containing  all  neces- 
sary recitals  which,  with  finality, 
disposes  of  cause,  is  regarded  as 
"judgment." — In  re  Method's  Es- 
tate, 21  P.2d  1084,  143  Or.  233. 

48.  Idaho.— State  v.  McNichols,  115 
P.2d  104,  62  Idaho  616. 

Mont.— State  ex  rel.  Meyer  v.  Dis- 
trict Court  of  Fourth  Judicial  Dis- 
trict in  and  for  Missoula  County, 
57  P.2d  778,  102  Mont.  222. 
Or.— In  re  McLeod's  Estate,  21  P.2d 
1084,  143  Or.  233. 

The  word  "judgment"  need  not  *be 
used  in  order  to  constitute  the  or- 
der a  judgment. — State  ex  rel.  Head- 
ley  v.  Industrial  Commission  of  Ohio, 
Ohio  App.,  67  N.E.2d  70. 

49.  Iowa.— Whit  tier  v.  Whittier,   23 
N.W.2d  435. 

Nev.— Elsman  v.  Elsman,  2  P.2d  139, 
54  Nev.  20,  rehearing  denied  3  P. 
2d  1071,  54  Nev.  20. 
33  C.J.  p  1053  note  43. 
"Order"    generally    defined    see    Mo- 
tions and  Orders  §  1,  also  42  C.J. 
p  464  note  9-p  465  note  13. 
Order  held  a  finding 

Order  for  "return  of  goods  irre- 
pleviable"  was  not  itself  a  judgment, 
but  was  a  finding  that  defendant  was 
entitled  to  return  of  automobile. — 
Commercial  Credit  Corporation  v. 
Flowers,  185  N.E.  30,  282  Mass.  316. 

50.  Iowa.— Whittier  v.  Whittier,   23 
N,W.2d  435.  .       M 

Okl. — Foreman  v.  Riley,  211  P.  495, 
88  Okl.  75. 

S.D.— Western  Bldg.  Co.  v.  J.  C.  Pen- 
ney Co.,  245  N.W.  909,  60  S.D.  630. 

Wis. — Newlander  v.  Riverview  Real- 
ty Co.,  298  N.W.  603.  610,  238  Wis. 
211,  135  A.L.R.  383. 

33  C.J.  p  1055  note  55. 

Order  as  to  title 
An  order,  adjudging  that  title  of 

mortgage     trustee     who     purchased 

mortgaged    property    at    foreclosure 

29 


sale  was  merchantable,  and  that  he 
recover,  from  person  with  whom 
he  entered  into  contract  for  sale  of 
premises,  damages  for  refusal  to 
complete  contract,  was  an  "order" 
in  a  "proceeding  at  the  foot  of  a 
judgment",  and  was  not  a  "judg- 
ment" under  statutory  definition. — 
Newlander  v.  Riverview  Realty  Co., 
supra. 

51.  Mo. — Corpus     Juris     quoted    in 
Koch  v.  Meacham,  121  S.W.2d  279, 
281,  233  Mo.App.  453. 

33  C.J.  p  1054  note  44 — 42  CJ.  p  466 

note  34. 
"Judgment"     defined     generally    see 

supra  §  1. 
Order     granting     naturalization     as 

judgment  see  Aliens   §   140   c. 

52.  Nev. — Elsman   v.   Elsman,    2   P. 
2d  139,   54  Nev.   20,   rehearing  de- 
nied 3   P.2d   1071,   54   Nev.   20. 

N.Y. — In  re  Kennedy's  Estate,  281 
N.T.S.  278,  156  Misc.  166. 

Tex. — Vacuum  Oil  Co.  v.  Liberty  Re- 
fining Co.,  Civ.App.,  247  S.W.  597, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  Key- 
stone Pipe  &  Supply  Co.  v.  Liber- 
ty Refining  Co.,  Com. App.,  260  S.W. 
1018. 

33  C.J.  p  1054  note  45. 

Determination  and  disposition  of 
ease 

An  order  which  has  effect  of  final- 
ly determining  rights  of  parties,  and 
finally  disposing  of  case  is  "judg- 
ment."— State  ex  rel.  Meyer  v.  Dis- 
trict Court  of  Fourth  Judicial  Dist. 
in  and  for  Missoula  County,  57  P.2d 
778,  102  Mont.  222. 

Tax  eale  judgment  was  held  "fiaal 
judgment,"  notwithstanding  recital" 
therein  that  judgment  "should  be 
rendered." — Griggs  v.  Montgomery, 
Tex.Civ.App.,  22  S.W.2d  688. 

53.  N.Y. — In    re    Kennedy's    Estate, 
281  N.Y.S.   278,   156   Misc.  166. 

&3  C.J.  p  1054  note  46. 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


tory  judgments,  as  is  discussed  infra  §  11,  and  final 
orders,  as  is  discussed  in  -the  CJ.S.  title  Motions 
and  Orders  §  2,  also  42  CJ.  p  468  notes  65-74. 

A  decision  sustaining  or  overruling  a  demurrer 
ordinarily  is  an  order,  not  a  judgment,54  although 
there  is  also  some  authority  to  the  contrary.55  An 
order  or  rub  ordinarily  is  not  founded  on  the  whole 
record  in  the  case,  but  is  granted  on  a  special  appli- 
cation to  the  court  called  a  "motion;"  the  determi- 
nation of  such  motion  is  an  order,  not  a  judgment.56 
A  special  proceeding  regularly  terminates  in  a  final 
order,  not  a  judgment,57  although  the  final  order  in 
a  special  proceeding  is  in  effect  a  judgment  and  is 
sometimes  referred  to  as  such.58 

Order  for  judgment.  An  order  merely  directing 
or  authorizing  the  entry  of  judgment  in  the  case 
does  not  constitute  a  judgment;  to  have  this  effect 
it  must  be  so  worded  as  to  express  the  final  sentence 
of  the  court  on  the  matters  contained  in  the  record 
and  to  end  the  case  at  once,  without  contemplating 
any  further  judicial  action.59  Orders  for  judgment, 
however,  have  sometimes  been  deemed  sufficient  as 
judgments.60 


Order  for  an  execution.  An  order  of  a  judge  to 
the  clerk  to  issue  execution  for  a  specific  sum  with 
costs  has  been  held  equivalent  to  a  judgment,61  al- 
though there  is  also  authority  to  the  contrary.62 

§  6.    •         Judgments  as  Contracts  or  Obli- 
gations 

Although  Judgments  are  sometimes  regarded  as  con- 
tracts or  debts  of  record  and  as  obligations  enforceable 
by  contractual  remedies,  they  are  not  true  contracts  or 
debts  in  a  strict  sense,  and  are  Included  within  those 
terms  as  used  in  statutes  only  where  such  is.  the  intent 
of  the  statutes. 

Broadly  speaking,  a  judgment  is  an  obligation  for 
the  payment  of  money.63  Under  the  classification 
of  all  obligations  into  two  classes,  namely,  those 
arising  ex  contractu  and  those  arising  ex  delicto, 
and  the  further  division  of  obligations  ex  con- 
tractu into  simple  contracts,  contracts  under  seal 
or  specialties,  and  contracts  of  record,  it  has  been 
usual  to  classify  judgment  obligations  as  contracts 
of  record.64  Judgments  have  been  declared  to  be 
contracts,65  and,  likewise,  judgments  have  been  de- 


54.  Wyo. — Greenawalt     v,     Natrona 
Impr.  Co.,  92  P.  1008,  16  Wyo.  226. 

33  C.J.  p  1054  note  49. 
Interlocutory    judgments    on   demur- 
rer see  infra  §  11. 

55.  N.Y. — Bentley  v.  Jones,  4  How. 
Pr.  336,  3  Code  Rep.  37. 

33  C.J.  p  1054  note  50. 

56.  Mo. — Pence     v.     Kansas     City 
Laundry    Service    Co.,    59    S.W.2d 
633,  332  Mo.  930. 

Okl.— French  v.  Boles,  261  P.  196, 
128  Okl.  90-— In  re  Baptiste's 
Guardianship,  256  P.  520,  125  Okl. 
184. 

33  C.J.  p  1054  note  51. 

57.  N.Y.— People  v.  Moroney,  120  NT. 
B.  149,  224  N.Y.  114. 

Wls. — In  re  Wisconsin  Mut.  Ins.  Co., 
6  N.W.2d  330,  241  Wis.  394,  cer- 
tiorari  denied  Hinge  v.  Duel,  63 
S.Ct.  1157,  319  U.S.  747,  87  L.Bd. 
1703. 

33  C.J.  p  1054  note  52. 

58.  N.Y. — In    re   Kennedy's   Estate, 
281  N.Y.S.   278,   156  Misc.   166. 

33  C.J.  p  1055  note  53. 

59.  U.S. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  G. 
Amsinck  &  Co.  v.  Springfield  Gro- 
cer Co.,  C.C.A.MO.,  7  F.2d  855. 

Ariz. — Brewer  v.  Morgan,  26*3  P.  630, 
33  Ariz.  225. 

Cal.— Bastajian  v.  Brown,  120  P.2d  9, 
19  Cal.2d  209— Prothero  v.  Superi- 
or Court  of  Orange  County,  238  P. 
357,  196  Cal.  439— City  of  Los  An- 
geles v.  Hannon,  251  P.  247,  79 
CaLApp.  669. 

Okl.— Lee  v.  Epperson,  32  P.2d  309, 
168  Okl,  220. 


Tex. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in.  Loper 

v.     Hosier,    Civ.App.,     148     S.W.2d 

889,  891,  error  dismissed,  judgment 

correct. 
33  C.J.  p  1055  note  54,  p  1104  note 

33. 
Purport 

An  order  for  a  judgment  is  not  a 
judgment,  because  it  does  not  pur- 
port of  itself  to  determine  the 
rights  of  the  parties. — Erlcson  v. 
Steiner,  6  P.2d  298,  119  Cal.App.  305 
—33  C.J.  p  1104  note  32. 

An  entry  in.  the  record,  ordering 
that  plaintiff  recover  judgment  from 
defendant  in  the  amount  therein 
stated,  was  not  a  judgment,  but 
merely  an  order  for  judgment. — Illi- 
nois Trust  &  Savings  Bank  v.  Town 
of  Roscoe,  194  N.W,  649,  46  S.D.  477. 

Judgment  nisi  has  no  more  effect 
on  parties'  rights  than  verdict,  be- 
ing only  order  for  entry  of  effective 
judgment,  absent  intervening  pro- 
ceedings.— Hodgson  v.  Phippin,  150 
A,  118,  159  Md.  97—35  C.J.  p  1055 
note  54  [a]. 

60.  Ga.— Tift  v.  Keaton,  2  S.E.  690, 
78  Ga.  235. 

N.H. — Young   v.    Dearborn,    27   N.H. 
324. 

61.  Ga. — Klink  v.   The   Cusseta,   30 
Ga.  504. 

111.— Sears  v.  Sears,   8  111.  47. 

62.  Colo. — Hoehne     v.     Trugillo,     1 
Colo.  161,  91  Am.D.  703. 

33  C.J.  p  1104  note  36. 

63.  La. — Holland  v.  Gross,  App.,  195 
So.  828. 

N.Y.— Weinstein  v.  McBlligott,  10  N. 

30 


Y.S.2d    320,    256   App.Div.    307,    re- 
versed  on   other  grounds   22  NJB. 
2d  171,  281  N.Y.  605. 
33  C.J.  p  1056  note  63. 
New  obligation 

A  judgment  is  not  a  contract  or 
an  obligation 'of  a  contract  but  ift  a 
new  obligation  under  which  antece- 
dent rights  are  to  be  enforced. — 
Tradesmens  Nat.  Bank  &  Trust  Co. 
v.  Floyd,  39  A.2d  728,  731,  156  Pa. 
Super.  141. 
Recognition  of  obligation 

Judgment  is  the  recognition  of  tho 
preSxistence  of  a  debt  or  obligation. 
—Bailey  v.  Louisiana  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  105  So.  626,  159  La.  576— Hol- 
land v.  Gross,  La.App.,  195  So.  828. 

64.  Iowa.— Chader    v.    Wilkins,    284 
N.W.   183,   226  Iowa  417. 

33  C.J.  p  1056  notes  64,  67   [a]. 

65.  La. — Butler  v.  Bolinger,  133  So. 
778,  16  La.App.  397. 

33  C.J.  p  1056  note  65. 

Judgments  by  confession  see  infra  § 

134  et  seq. 

Whether  recovered  for  tort  or  on 
contract,  the  judgment  becomes  a 
debt  which  defendant  is  under  obli- 
gation to  pay,  and  tho  law  implies 
a  promise  or  contract  on  his  part 
to  pay  it. 
Cal. — Grotheer  v.  Meyer  Rosenberg, 

53  P.2d  99C,  11  Cal.App.2d  ii«8. 
N.Y.— Gutta  -Percha  &  Rubber  Mfg. 

Co.    v.    City  of  Houston,    15    N.B. 

402,   108  N.Y.    276,   2   Am.S.R.   412, 

14  N.Y.Civ.Proc.  19,  20  Abb.N.Cas. 

21$. 

Partition  Judgment  from  which 
parties  did  not  appeal  could  be  in- 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§6 


clared  to  be  debts66  of  record,67  or  specialties.68  It 
is  only  by  a  legal  fiction,  however,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enforcing  the  obligation  by  contractual  rem- 
edies, that  judgments  can  be  considered  as  con- 
tracts.69 Thus  an  action  on  a  judgment  is  an  ac- 
tion on  a  contract,™  irrespective  of  the  nature  of 
the  original  transaction  on  which  the  judgment  was 
founded,71  and  the  same  provisional  remedies  may 
be  had  as  in  an  action  on  an  express  contract.72 

On  the  other  hand,  the  essential  elements  of  ev- 
ery true  contract,  such  as  competent  parties  and 
assent,  are  often  wanting  in  judgments  which  usu- 
ally are  rendered  in  invitum,  and  often  against  in- 
fants, lunatics,  or  married  women.78  Accordingly  it 
has  also  been  declared  that  judgments  are  not  con- 
tracts74 or  debts76  in  the  strict  sense  of  these  terms. 

Withing  meaning  of  constitutional  and  statutory 


provisions.  The  fact  that  a  judgment  is  some- 
times regarded  as  a  contract  is  not  conclusive  on 
the  question  whether  it  is  a  contract  within  the 
meaning  of  that  term  as  used  in  particular  statutory 
or  constitutional  provisions,  and  in  all  such  cases 
the  intent  of  such  provisions  is  determinative.76 
Accordingly,  it  has  been  held  that  a  judgment  is  a 
contract  within  the  meaning  of  statutes  confer- 
ring77 or  limiting78  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  in  ac- 
tions on  contracts,  prohibiting  the  assignment  of 
choses  in  action  not  arising  out  of  contract,79  au- 
thorizing set-offs  and  counterclaims,80  making  joint 
contracts  joint  and  several,81  and  prohibiting  the 
issuance  of  process  against  the  body  in  an  action  on 
a  contract.82  On  the  other  hand,  a  judgment  is  not 
a  contract  or  debt  within  statutes  requiring  actions 
on  contracts  to  be  brought  in  the  name  of  the  real 
party  in  interest,88  or  making  trustees  or  stockhold- 


terpreted  as  contract  between  par- 
ties.— Frazier  v.  Hanlon  Gasoline 
Co.,  Tex.Civ.App.,  29  S.W.2d  461,  er- 
ror refused. 

Contracts  of  highest  character 
Va. — Barnes   v.   American  Fertilizer 
Co.,  130  S.E.  902,  144  Va.  692. 

66.  Iowa. — Chader    v.    Wilkins,    284 
N.W.  183,  226  Iowa  417. 

Mo.— Vitale  v.   Duerbeck,   92   S.W.2d 

691,  338  Mo.  556. 
33  C.J.  p  1056  note  66. 
Judgment  for  tort 

A  judgment  rendered  on  a  cause 
of  action  for  a  tort  is  nevertheless 
a  debt—State  v.  City  of  Mound  City, 
73  S.W.2d  1017,  "325  Mo.  702—33  C. 
J.  p  1056  note  66  [a],  [c]. 

A  judgment  is  an  evidence  of  debt. 
— Oil  Tool  Exchange  v.  Schuh,  153 
P.2d  976,  67  Cal.App.2d  288—33  C.J. 
p  1056  note  66  [e]. 

67.  Mo. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  State 
v.  City  of  Mound  City,  73  S.W.2d 
1017,  1020,  325  Mo.  702. 

33  O.J.  p  1056  note  67. 

68.  Conn. — Barber    v.    International 
Co.,    51    A.    857,    74   Conn.    652,   92 
Am.S.R.  246. 

33  C.J.  p  1056  note  68. 

69.  R.I.— Everett    v.    Cutler    Mills, 
160  A.  924,  52  R.I.  330. 

33  C.J.  p  1057  note  69. 

70.  Cal. — Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
Grotheer  v.   Meyer  Rosenberg,   53 
P.2d    996,    999,    11   Cal.App.2d   268. 

Iowa. — Chader  v.  Wilkins,  284  N.W. 

183,  226  Iowa  417. 
33  C.J.  p  1057  note  71. 
Nature  and  form  of  action  on  judg- 
ment generally  see  infra  §  851. 
Assuntpsit  or  debt 

Instances  of  quasi  or  construc- 
tive contracts  include  judgments  on 
which  an  action  of  assumpsit  or  debt 
may  be  maintained,'  according  to  the 
circumstances,  because  of  a  promise 


to  pay  implied  by  law. — Corpus  Ju- 
ris quoted  in  Caldwell  v.  Missouri 
State  Life  Ins.  Co.,  230  S.W.  566, 
569,  148  Ark.  474—13  C.J.  p  245  note 
70. 

71.  Cal. — Corpus     Juris      cited     in 
Grotheer  v.   Meyer  Rosenberg,   53 
P.2d  996,  999,  11  Cal.App.2d  268. 

Iowa.— Chader  v.  Wilkins,  284  N.W. 

183,  226  Iowa  417. 
Okl.— Vaughn  v.  Osborne,  229  P.  467, 

103  Okl.  59. 
33  C.J.  p  1057  note  72. 

72.  N.Y.— Gutta    Percha    &   Rubber 
Mfg.   Co.   v.   City   of  Houston,   15 
N.E.  402,   108  N.T.   276,   20  Abb.N. 
Cas.  218,  14  N.T.Civ.Proc.  19. 

33  C.J.  p  1057  note  73. 

7a    U.S.— In  re  Ransford,  Mich.,  194 

F.  658,  115  C.C.A.  560. 
33  C.J.  p  1057  note  74. 

74.  RJ.— Everett    v.    Cutler    Mills, 
160  A.  924,  52  R.I.  330. 

33  C.J,  p  1057  note  75. 

Consent  decree  for  injunction  in- 
volving supervision  of  changing  con- 
ditions should  not  be  considered  con- 
tract.— U.  S.  v.  Swift  &  Co.,  App. 
D.C.,  52  S.Ct  460,  286  U.S.  106,  76 
L.Ed.  999. 

75.  La. — Holland  v.  Gross,  App.,  195 
So.  828. 

76.  U.S.— Metcalf  v.  City  of  Water- 
town,  Wis.,   9   S.Ct.   ITS,   128   U.S. 
586,  32  L.Ed.  543. 

33  C.J.  p  1058  note  77. 
Judgment  as  contract  or  debt  with- 
in: 

Constitutional: 

Provisions  prohibiting  statutes 
impairing  obligation  of  con- 
tracts see  Constitutional  Law 
§  350. 

Or  statutory  provisions  prohibit- 
ing imprisonment  for  debt  see 
Arrest  §  25  a,  Executions  § 
413  a,  i 

31 


Rules  as  to  joining  causes  of  ac- 
tion see  Actions  §  83. 

Statute  of  limitations  see  infra  § 
854. 

Statutes  regulating  rate  of  inter- 
est see  Interest  §  40. 

77.  Cal.— Wallace    v.    JSldredge,    27 
Cal.  498— Stuart  v.  Lander,  16  Cal. 
372,  76  Am.D.  538. 

Jurisdiction  of  courts  generally  see 
Courts  §  242. 

78.  N.Y.— Crane  v.  Crane,  19  N.Y.S. 
691. 

79.  Mo. — Corpus      Juris      cited      in 
State   v.    City   of  Mound   City,    78 
S.W.2d  1017,  1020,  325  Mo.  702. 

33  C.J.  p  1058  note  83. 
Assignment  of  judgments  see  infra 
§  512. 

80.  U.S. — Rose  v.  Northwest  Fire  & 
Marine    Ins.    Co.,    C.C.Or.,    71    F. 
649. 

33  C.J.  p  1058  note  84. 
Contrary  view 

(1)  A  contrary  rule  has  been  fol- 
lowed in  Illinois. — Rae  v.  Hulbert,  17 
111.  572. 

(2)  It  has  been  said,  however,  that 
"the  weight  of  authority  is  against 
the  view  taken  by  the  supreme  court 
of  Illinois." — Rose  v.  Northwest  Fire 
&  Marine  Ins.  Co.,  C.C.Or.,  71  F.  649, 
651. 

81.  U.S.— Belleville     Sav.     Bank    v. 
Winslow,  C.C.MO.,  30  F.  488. 

33  C.J.  p  1058  note  87. 

82.  Vt — Stoughton    v.    Barrett,    20 
Vt.    385— Sawyer  v.  Vilas,    19   Vt. 
43. 

!.    Ala.— Wolffe  v.  Eberlein,  74  Ala. 

99,  49  Am.R.  809. 
33  C.J.  p  1058  note  82. 
Plaintiffs  in  .action  on  judgment  see 

infra  §  857. 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


ers  of  a  corporation  liable  for  its  debts,84  or  within 
the  meaning  of  married  women's  acts,85 

§  7.    Judgments  as  Assignments  or  Con- 
veyances 

In  the  absence  of  a  statute  to  the  contrary,  a  Judg- 
ment is  not  an  assignment  and  ordinarily  Is  not  effectual 
to  pass  the  title  to  land. 

A  judgment  is  not  an  assignment,86  even  when 
entered  on  confession,87  although,  by  statute,  judg- 
ments suffered  under  particular  circumstances  may 
operate  as  an  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  credi- 
tors.88 A  judgment  is  not  effectual  to  pass  the  title 
to  land,89  apart  from  statutory  provision  to  that 
effect,90  unless  it  substantially  undertakes  to  vest 
title,  as  by  declaring  that  it  shall  operate  as  a  deed 
of  conveyance,  in  a  case  where  the  court  has  juris- 
diction to  affect  the  title  to  land  by  a  judgment  or 
decree  operating  in  rem.91 

§  8.    Classification  and  Kinds 

Judgments  have  been  classified  with  reference  to 
the  state  of  the  pleadings  at  the  time  of  pronouncement, 
and  the  proper  style  of  the  Judgment  may  also  depend 
on  the  form  of  the  action. 

Under  common-law  practice,  judgments  usually 
are  classified  with  reference  to  the  state  of  the 
pleadings  at  the  time  judgment  is  pronounced,  un- 
der which  classification  they  fall  into  several  basic 
groups.92  The  proper  style  of  the  judgment  may  al- 


so depend  on  the  form  of  the  action,  immemorial 
custom  having  prescribed  the  formula  of  words  to 
be  employed  in  the  judgments  rendered  in  certain 
classes  of  proceedings.93 

The  form  of  judgment  granted  on  determination 
of  issues  of  law  or  fact  is  discussed  infra  §§  9,  10. 
Numerous  particular  kinds  of  judgments  are  defined 
infra  this  section,  and  there  may  be  found  elsewhere 
in  other  connections  a  consideration  of  judgments 
by  confession,  or  judgments  by  cognovit  actionem 
and  judgments  by  confession  relicta  verificatione, 
discussed  infra  §§  134-137,  judgments  on  consent, 
offer,  or  admission,  discussed  infra  §§  173-186, 
judgments  by  default  or  nil  dicit,  discussed  infra 
§  187,  judgments  of  dismissal,  discontinuance,  non- 
suit, or  retraxit,  discussed  in  Dismissal  and  Non- 
suit §§  1-5,  judgments  non  obstantc  vcredicto,  or 
judgments  notwithstanding  verdict,  discussed  infra 
§§  59-61,  judgments  mine  pro  tune,  discussed  infra 
§§  117-121,  and  judgments  on  the  pleadings,  dis- 
cussed in  the  C.J.S.  title  Pleading  §  511,  also  49  C 
J.  p  779  note  29-p  780  note  48. 

Irregular  or  erroneous  judgment.  An  irregular 
judgment  is  one  entered  contrary  to  the  course  of 
the  court,  that  is,  contrary  to  the  method  of  pro- 
cedure and  practice  allowed  by  law  in  some  mate- 
rial respect.94  An  erroneous  judgment  is  one  ren- 
dered according  to  the  course  and  practice  of  the 
court,  but  contrary  to  law.95 


84.  U.S.— Chase    v.    Curtis,   N.Y.,    5 
S.Ct.    554,    113    U.S.    452,    28    L.Ed. 
1038. 

Cal.— Larrabee   v.    Baldwin,    35    Cal. 
155. 

85.  N.Y.— White  v.  Wood,   2  N.Y.S. 
673,   49  Hun  381,   15   N.Y.Civ.Proc. 
187. 

86.  Pa.— Breading,  v.   Boggs,   20  Pa. 
•  33    37 

33  c'.J.  p  1059  note  95. 

87.  Pa, — Breading  v.   Boggs,   supra, 
Judgment    by    confession    see    infra 

§§  134-172. 

88.  Ky.— Laughlin     v.     Georgetown 
First  Nat.  Bank,  47  S.W.  623,  103 

.Ky.  742,  20  Ky.L.  354. 
33  C.J.  p  1059  note,97. 

89.  N.C.-^Proctor  v.  Ferebee,  36  N- 
C.  143,  36  Am.D.  34. 

33C.J.  p  1059  note  98. 

90.  N.J.— Price    v.    Sisson,    13    N.J. 
,Eq.  168. 

KG.— Morris  v.  White,  2  S.E.  254,  96 
N.C.  91. 

91.  Mich. — Simmons   v.   Conklin,    88 
N.W.  625,  129  Mich.  190. 

33  C.J.  P  1059  note  1. 

92.  U.S. — Derby    v.     Jacques,    C.C. 
Mass.,  7  F.Cas.No.3817,  1  Cliff.  425. 

33  C,J.  p  1059  note  3. 


Judgments   fall  into  four  groups 

under  Blacksione's  classification: 
First,  where  the  facts  are  agreed  by 
the  parties,  and  the  law  is  deter- 
mined by  the  court,  as  in  the  case  of 
judgment  on  a  demurrer;  second, 
where  the  law  is  admitted  by  the 
parties  and  the  facts  are  in  dispute, 
as  in  the  case  of  judgments  on  ver- 
dicts; third,  where  the  facts  and  law 
are  admitted  by  defendant,  as  in 
judgments  by  confession  and  de- 
fault; fourth,  where  plaintiff  is  con- 
vinced that  the  facts,  or  the  law, 
or  both,  are  not  sufficient  to  support 
his  action,  as  in  judgments  of  non- 
suit, retraxit,  and  discontinuance. — 
Derby  v.  Jacques,  C.C.Mass.,  7  F. 
Cas.No.3,817,  1  Cliff.  425. 
Judgment  against  plaintiff 

At  common  law  a  judgment 
against  plaintiff  was  on  a  retraxit, 
non  pros,  nonsuit,  nolle  prosequi, 
discontinuance  or  a  judgment  on  an 
issue  found  by  jury  in  favor  of  de- 
fendant or  on  demurrer. — Steele  v. 
Beaty,  2  S.E.2d  854,  215  N.C.  680. 

93.    111.— -Jackson   v.   Haskell,   3   111, 

565. 

33  -C.J.  p  1059  note  4. 
Debt 
111. — Jackson  v.  Haskell,  supra. 

32 


94.  N.M.— -EAly   v.    McGahon,    21    P. 
2d  84,  87,  37  N.M.  240. 

N.C. — Duplin    County    v.    Ksssscll,    27 

S.E.2d    448,    450,    223    N.C.    631— 

Wynne   v.   Conrad,   17    S.E.2d   514, 

518,     220     N.C.     355— Crowdcr     v. 

Stiers,    1    S.E.2d    353,    355,    216    N. 

C.   123— Dall  v.  Hawkins,  189  S.E. 

774,    211    N.C.    283— Hood    ex    rel. 

Citizens'    Bank    &    Trust    Co.    v. 

Stewart,    184    S.E.    36,    40,    209    N. 

C.  424 — Duffer  v.  Branson,  125  S.E. 

619,  620,  188  N.C.  789. 
33  C.J.   p  814  note  6—34  C.J.  p  508 

note  3. 
Irregular  or  erroneous  judgment  as 

void  or  voidable  see  infra  §  19. 
Operation    and    effect    of    void    and 

voidable   judgments   see    infra    §§ 

449-452. 

95.  N.M.— Ealy  v.  McG'ahen,  21  P*2d 
84,  87,  37  N.M.  246, 

N.C.— Wynne  v.  Conrad,  17  S.E.2d 
514,  518,  220  N.C.  355— Dail  v. 
Hawkins,  189  S.E.  774,  211  N.C.  283 
— Hood  ex  rel.  Citizens'  Bank  & 
Trust  Co.  v.  Stewart,  184  S.E.  36, 
40,  209  N.C.  424— Herbert  B.  New- 
ton &  Co.  v.  Wilson  Furniture  Mfg. 
Co.,  174  S.E.  449,  450,  206  N.C.  533 
— Wellons  v.  Lassiter,  157  S.B. 
434,  436,  200  N.C.  474— Finger  v. 
Smith,  133  S.E.  186,  187,  191  N.C. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


A  judgment  on  the  merits  is  one  rendered  after 
argument  and  investigation  and  when  it  is  deter- 
mined such  party  has  a  right,  as  distinct  from  a 
judgment  rendered  on  some  formal  or  merely  tech- 
nical fault  or  by  default  without  trial.** 

Judgment  nihil  capiat  per  breve  or  per  bittam 
is  the  form  of  judgment  against  plaintiff  in  an  ac- 
tion either  in  bar  or  in  abatement;  literally,  "that 
he  taka  nothing  by  his  writ  or  declaration."97 

Judgment  nisi.  At  common  law,  a  judgment  nisi 
was  one  entered  on  the  return  of  the  nisi  prius  rec- 
ord, which,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  postea, 
was  to  become  absolute  unless  otherwise  ordered  by 
the  court  within  the  first  four  days  of  the  next  suc- 
ceeding term.98 

Judgment  of  non  pros,  or  non  prosequitur  is  a 
judgment  of  the  court  on  motion  of  defendant  in 
a  civil  action  in  case  plaintiff  do.es  not  file  his  decla- 
ration or  replication  in  due  time.99 
i 

Judgment  quod  bitta  cassetur  is  the  common-law 
form  of  judgment  sustaining  a  plea  in  abatement 
where  the  proceeding  is  by  bill,  that  is,  by  a  capias 
instead  of  by  original  writ;  literally,  "that  the  bill 
be  quashed."1 

Judgment  quod  eat  sine  die  is  the  old  form  of  a 


judgment   for   defendant;2    literally  "that  he  go 
without  day."8 

Judgment  quod  recuperet  is  a  judgment  in  favor 
of  plaintiff  rendered  when  he  has  prevailed  on  an 
issue  in  fact  or  an  issue  in  law  other  than  one  aris- 
ing on  a  dilatory  plea.* 

Judgment  respondeat  ouster  is  a  form  of  judg- 
ment for  plaintiff  on  an  issue  in  law  arising  on  a 
dilatory  plea.6  The  judgment  is  that  defendant 
answer  over,  and,  since  it  is  not  a  final  judgment, 
the  pleading  is  resumed  and  the  action  proceeds.5 

A  punitive  judgment  is  one  the  purpose  of  which 
is  to  inflict  a  penalty  or  punishment  as  distinguish- 
ment  from  one  granting  a  remedy.7 

A  self-executing  judgment  is  a  judgment  that  ac- 
complishes by  its  mere  entry  the  result  sought,  and 
requires  no  further  exercise  of  the  power  of  the 
court  to  accomplish  its  purpose.* 


§9- 


Judgment  on  Issue  of  Law 


A  judgment  on  a  demurrer  to  pleadings  Is  on  an 
Issue  of  law  and  Is  the  same  as  It  would  have  been  on 
an  issue  of  fact  between  the  parties,  but  a  judgment 
sustaining  or  overruling  a  demurrer  to  a  plea  In  abate- 
ment Is  not  of  a  final  nature. 

When  the  pleadings  terminate  in  a  demurrer  on 
either  side,  an  issue  of  law  is  presented,  and  a  judg- 
ment on  such  demurrer  is  on  an  issue  of  law.9  On 


818 — Duffer   v.    Branson,    125    S.E. 

619,  620,  188  N.C.  789. 
34  C.J.   p  508  note  4—21  C.J.  p  822 

note  86. 

When  court  lias  Jurisdiction  of  the 
subject  matter  of  the  action  and  of 
the  parties,  a  judgment  giving  to 
one  of  the  parties  more  than  he 
in  entitled  to  receive  is  an  erroneous 
judgment. — McLeod  v.  Hartman,  253 
P.  1094,  1095,  123  Kan.  110. 

96.  Xy. — Bell  Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth, 
61  S.W.2d  879,  880,  250  Ky.  21. 

97.  Black  L.D. 

98.  Black  L.D. 

33  C.J.  p  1059  note  4  [b]. 

It  is  otherwise  defined  as  "one 
that  is  to  be  valid  unless  something 
else  should  be  dene  within  a  given 
time  to  defeat  it."— U.  S.  v.  Win- 
stead,  D.C.N.6.,  12  F.  50,  51,  4 
Hughes  464. 

39.    N.C.— Steele  v.   Beaty.   2   S.B.2d 

854,  856,  215  N.C.  680. 
Pa.— Beverldge  v.  Teeter,  14  Pa.Dist. 

&  Co.  498,  45  York  Leg.Rec,  16,  26 

Luz.Lieg.Reg.  100. 
33  C.J.  p  1061  note  26. 
Nolle  prosegnl  dijrtingrnished 

(1)  Judgment  of  non  pros,  is  not 
to  be  confused  with  a  nol.  pros,  or 
nolle  prosequi,  by  which  plaintiff  or 
the  attorney  for  .the  state  voluntari- 

49  0.  J.S.-3 


ly  declares  that  he  will  not  further 
prosecute  a  suit  or  indictment,  or  a 
particular  count  in  either. — Common- 
wealth v.  Casey,  12  Allen,  Mass.,  214, 
218—33  C.J.  p  1061  note  26  [bj. 

(2)  "Nolle    proseaui"    defined    see 
Dismissal  and  Nonsuit  9  4. 

1.  Black  L.D. 

33  C.J.  p  1060  note  15  [a]. 

2.  Del.— Silver   v.    Rhodes,    2    Del. 
369,  374. 

N*.J. — Hale  v,  Lawrence,  22  N.JXaw 
72,  80. 

Form  of  judgment  generally  see  in- 
fra 5  62. 

8.    Black  L.D.,  sub  verbo  "Sine." 

4.  Ky. — Bell  Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth, 
61  S.W.2d  879,  880,  250  Ky.  21. 

As  proper  judgment  on  issues  of  law 
or  fact  see  infra  55  9,  10. 

5.  Black  L.D. 

33  C.J.  p  1060  note  13  M. 

6.  U.S.— (Philadelphia  &  R.    Coal   & 
Iron  Co.  v.  Kever,  N.T.,  260  F.  534, 
536,   171  C.C.A.   318,  certiorari  de- 
nied 40   S.Ct   13,   250   U.S.   665,   63 
L.Bd.  1197. 

7.  U.S.— In  re  Merchants'   Stock  & 
Grain   Co.,   Mo.,   32   S.Ct.   339,    223 
U.S.  639,  56  L.Ed.  584— In  re  Chris- 
tensen  Engineering  Co.,  N.Y.,  24  S. 
Ct.  729,  194  U.S.  458,  48  L.Ed.  1072. 

33 


Ga. — Hancock   v.    Kennedy,    95    S.EL 

735,  22  Ga.App.  144. 
&    Cal.— Feinberg   v.    Doe,    92    P.2d 

640,  642,  14  Cal.2d  24. 
Similarly  expressed 

(1)  One   where  no   process   is  re- 
quired in  order  to  fully  execute  it. 
— Jayne  v.  Drorbaugh,  17  N.W.  433, 
436,  63  Iowa  711—57  C.J.  p  108  note 
87. 

(2)  One  which  has  an  intrinsic  ef- 
fect.— Dulin  v.  Pacific  Wood  &  Coal 
Co.,  33  P.  123,  124,  98  Cal.  304. 

(3)  One  which  is  injunctions!  and 
prohibitive  or  which  adjudicates  the 
title  to  property  or  fixes  the  status 
of  a  party. — Haddlck  v.  Polk  County 
Dist  Ct.,  145  N.W.  943,  944,  164  Iowa 
417—57  C.J.  p  109  note  91. 

(4)  Other    similar    definitions    see 
57  C.J.  p  109  notes  89,  90. 

9.-  Wis. — Douville     v.     Merrlck,     25 

Wis.  688. 
Judgment  on: 
Demurrer  to: 

Evidence  see  the  C.J.S.  title  Tri- 
al  §    236,   also    64    C.J.   p   889 
note  46-p  390  note  58. 
Pleadings    see    the    C.J.S.    title 
Pleading  §  274,  also  49  C.J.  p 
461  note  94-p  465  note  81. 
Pleadings     see     the     C.J.S.     title 
Pleading   S   511,   also   49   C.J.   p 
779  note  29-p  780  note  48. 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


demurrer  to  any  of  the  pleadings  which  go  to  the 
action,  the  judgment  for  either  party  is  the  same  as 
it  would  have  been  on  an  issue  of  fact  joined  on 
the  same  pleading,  and  found  in  favor  of  the  same 
party.10  At  common  law  the  judgment  for  plaintiff 
on  a  demurrer  to  any  of  the  pleadings  in  chief  is 
quod  recuperet,  that  is,  that  he  recover;11  that  for 
defendant  is  quod  eat  sine  die,  that  is,  that  he  go 
hence  without  day.12  As  is  discussed  in  the  CJ.S. 
title  Pleading  §  274,  also  33  C.J.  p  1060  notes  10-12, 
and  49  C.J.  p  461  note  4-p  465  note  81,  the  judg- 
ment is  final  unless  leave  to  amend  or  to  plead  over 
is  given,  but,  since  the  granting  of  such  leave  is 
almost  a  matter  of  course,  it  is  not  now  usual  to 
enter  final  judgment  on  demurrer  unless  the  party 
fails  or  refuses  to  amend  or  to  plead  over,  as  the 
case  may  be. 

On  demurrer  to  a  plea  in  abatement,  if  the  de- 
murrer is  sustained,  the  judgment  is  not  final  but 
is  respondeat  ouster,  that  is,  that  he  answer  over;13 
final  judgment  is  rendered  only  on  failure  to  plead 
further.1*  If  the  demurrer  or  other  objection  is 
overruled,  and  the  dilatory  plea  is  held  sufficient  in 


law,  the  judgment  is  that  the  writ  or  declaration  be 
quashed,15  but  this  rule  of  the  common  law  has 
been  changed  by  some  statutes  permitting  plaintiff 
after  overruling  of  his  demurrer  to  take  issue  on 
the  facts.1* 

§  10.    Judgment  on  Issue  of  Fact 

Final  Judgment  on  an  issue  of  fact,  if  for  the  plain- 
tiff, is  that  he  recover,  but  Judgment  for  the  defendant 
on  a  fact  Issue  raised  in  a  plea  In  abatement  is  merely 
that  the  writ  or  declaration  be  quashed. 

The  final  judgment  on  an  issue  of  fact,  taken  on 
the  declaration,  or  a  plea  in  bar,  if  for  plaintiff,  is 
quod  recuperet,  that  is,  that  he  recover  j1*  if  for 
defendant,  the  judgment  is  nihil  capiat  per  breve  or 
per  billam,  that  is,  that  he  take  nothing  by  his  decla- 
ration or  writ.18  Where  an  issue  of  fact  on  a  plea 
in  abatement  is  found  in  favor  of  defendant,  the 
judgment  must  be  cassetur  breve  or  billa,  that  is, 
that  the  writ  or  declaration  be  quashed,  as  where  a 
demurrer  to  such  a  'plea  is  decided  in  his  favor ;  the 
judgment  cannot  be  nihil  capiat,  or  on  the  merits, 
because  the  plea  is  not  in  bar  of  the  action.19 


NX    N.J.— Hale  v.  Lawrence,  22  N.J. 

Law  72. 
JT.Y. — Nachod  v.  Hindley,  103  1T.Y.S. 

801,  118  App.Div.  658. 

11.  Wis.— Douvllle    v.    Merrlck,    25 
Wis.  688. 

33  C.J.  p  1059  note  8. 
"Judgment   quod   recuperet"    defined 
see  supra  5  8. 

12.  HI.— People,  for  Use  of  O'Far- 
rell  v.  Johnson,  215  IlLApp.  580. 

33  C.J.  p  1060  note  9. 

"Judgment  quod  eat  sine  die"  defined 

see  supra  §  8. 
Judgment  for  costs 

Where  the  petition  failed  to  state 
a  cause  of  action,  the  court  did  not 
err  In  sustaining  a  general  demurrer 
thereto  and  in  rendering  a  Judgment 
against  plaintiff  for  the  cost  of  the 
action. — Franks  v.  Adolph  Kempner 
Co.,  217  P.  848,  91  Okl.  289. 
Question  of  abatement 

Where  demurrer,  as  may  some- 
times be  done,  is  treated  as  plea  in 
abatement  on  ground  that  action  is 
prematurely  brought,  judgment 
should  show  that  decision  was  based 
on  Question  of  abatement,  otherwise 
it  will  be  presumed  to  be  a  decision 
on  merits.— Smith  v.  City  of  Daven- 
port, 201  N.W.  47,  198  Iowa  1295. 
13.  Ala.— Cravens  v.  Bryant  3  Ala. 

278— State  v.  Allen,  1  Ala.  442. 
Ark. — Fulcher  v.  Lyon,  4  Ark.  445 — 

Renner  v.  Reed,  3  Ark.  339. 
Conn. — Nichols   v.   Seacock,    1   Root 
286 — Fitch  v.  Lothrop,  1  Root  192 
DeL — Spencer  v.  Dutton,  1  Harr.  75, 
HL — Branigan  v.  Rose,  8  111.  123,  fol- 
lowed In  8  111.  130 — Bradshaw  v 


Morehouse,   6  111.  395— F.  H.  Earl 

Mfg.   Co.   v.   Summit  Lumber  Co., 

125  IlLApp.  391. 
Ind.— Clarke  v.  Kite,  5  Blackf.  167— 

Atkinson  v.  State  Bank,  5  Blackf. 

84— Lambert  v.   Lagow,   1  Blackf. 

388. 
Ky.— Hay  v.  Arberry,  1  J.J.Marsh.  95 

—Moore  v.  Morton,  1  Bibb    234. 
Me.— McKeen  v.  Parker,  51  Me.  389. 
Mass.— Parks  v.  Smith,  28  N.B.  1044, 

155  Mass.  26. 
Miss.— Drane  v.  Board  of  Police  of 

Madison  County,  42  Miss.  264— Lee 

v.  Dozier,  40  ^iss.  477— Besancon 

v.   Shirley,   17 'Miss.  457— Lang  v. 

Fatheree,   15   Miss.   404— Beaty  v. 

Harkey,  10  Miss.  563. 
Mo.— Wilson  v.  Atwood,  4  Mo.  366. 
N.H.— Trow  v.  Messer,  32  N.H.  361. 
N.X — Garr  v.  Stokes,  16  N.J.Law  403. 
N.C.— Casey  v.  Harrison,  13  N.C.  244. 
Pa. — Bauer   v.   Roth,    4   Rawle   83 — 

McCabe  v.  U.  S.,  4  Watts  325. 
Tenn. — Straus  v.  Weil,  5  Coldw.  120 

— Rainey  &  Henderson  v.  Sanders, 

4    Humphr.    447— McBee   v.    State, 

Meigs  122. 
Tex. — Ritter  v.  Hamilton,  4  Tex.  325. 
Wis. — Anderson  v.  Rountree,  1  Pinn. 

115. 

33  C.J.  p  1060  note  13. 
"Judgment    respondeat   -ouster"    de- 
fined see  supra  §  8. 

.  There  are  exceptions  to  the  rule 

where  the  plea  contains  matter 
pleadable  only  in  abatement  but 
commences  or  concludes  in  bar,  or 
where  matter  in  abatement  is  plead- 
ed puis  darrein  continuance.  In 
such  cases  the  judgment  is  final. — 
Turner  v.  Carter,  1  Head,  Tenn.,  520. 

34 


14.  Ala.— Massey  v.  Walker,  8  Ala. 
167. 

15.  Del.— Silver   v.    Rhodes,    2    Del. 
369. 

49  C.J.  p  244  note  7. 
'Judgment  quod  billa  cassetur"  de- 
fined see  supra  §  8. 
Suit  prematurely  "brought 

Trial  court,  after  sustaining  plea 
in  abatement  on  'ground  that  suit 
had  been  prematurely  brought,  com- 
mitted error  in  rendering  judgments 
that  plaintiff  take  nothing  by  the 
suit,  since  such  judgments  without 
restrictions  as  to  future  prejudice 
to  relitigate  the  same  subject  matter 
would  afford  a  basis  for  interposing 
a  plea  of  "res  judicata"  should  such 
suit  be  refiled  in  the  future  and 
proper  judgment  was  one  of  dismis- 
sal which  would  preclude  an  adjudi- 
cation on  the  merits. — Reed  v.  Sta- 
ley,  Tex.Civ.App.,  139  S.W.2d  851. 

16.  Ala.— Chilton  v.  Harbin,   6  Ala. 
171. 

17.  U.S.— National  Ace.  Soc.  v.  Spi- 
ro,  Tenn.,  78  F..774,  24  C.C.A.  334, 
certiorari  denied  18  S.Ct  944,  168 
U.S.  708,  42  L.Ed.  1211.  . 

33  C.J.  p  1060  note  18. 
"Judgment    quod   recuperet"    defined 
see  supra  §  8. 

18.  Black  L.D. 

19.  Fla. — McLendon       v.       Lurton- 
Hardaker  Co.,  91  So.  113.  83  Fla. 
263. 

33  C.J.  p  1060  note  20. 
Dismissal  of  cause 

When  a  plea  of  abatement  Is  sus- 
tained to  plaintiff's  action,  the  gen- 
eral order  is  one  dismissing  the 


49    0.  J.  S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§11 


Where,  however,  the  verdict  is  against  defendant, 
the  judgment  for  plaintiff  is  quod  recuperet,  or  that 
he  recover,  and  not  respondeat  ouster.20 

§11.    Final    and    Interlocutory    Judg- 
ments 

a.  In  general 

b.  When  judgment  becomes  final 

a.  In  General 

A  final  judgment  Is  one  which  disposes  of  the  cause 
both  as  to  the  subject  matter  and  the  parties  as  far  as 
the  court  has  power  to  dispose  of  It,  while  an  interlocu- 
tory Judgment  Is  one  which  reserves  or  leaves  some  fur- 
ther question  or  direction  for  future  determination;  but 


whether  a  Judgment  Is  flnat  depends  somewhat  on  the 
purpose  for  which,  and  the  standpoint  from  which,  It  Is 
being  considered. 

Judgments  may  generally  be  classified  as  either 
final  or  interlocutory.21  In  determining  whether  a 
judgment  is  "final,"  no  hard  and  fast  definition  or 
test  applicable  to  all  situations  can  be  given,  since 
finality  depends  somewhat  on  the  purpose  for 
which,  and  the  standpoint  from  which,  the  judgment 
is  being  considered,  and  it  may  be  final  for  one  pur- 
pose and  not  for  another.22  Generally,  however,  a 
final  judgment  is  one  which  disposes  of  the  cause 
both  as  to  the  subject  matter  and  the  parties  as  far 
as  the  court  has  power  to  dispose  of  it,23  while  an 


cause  and  the  dismissal  order  is  ef- 
fective only  as  long:  as  the  cause  of 
abatement  continues  to  exist. — Zar- 
sky  v.  Moss,  Teac.Civ.App.,  193  S.W. 
2d  245. 
Necessity  of  trial  on  facts 

Disposition,  on  pleas  in  abatement, 
of  claims  based  on  negligence  with- 
out a  trial  on  the  facts  was  error.— 
Rose  v.  Baker,  183  S.W.2d  438,  143 
Tex.  438. 

ao.    111.— F.  H.  Earl  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sum- 
mit Lumber  Co.,   125  IlLApp.   391. 
Miss. — Coleman  v.    Bowman,    99    So. 
465,    135    Miss.    137— McNeely    v. 
Tazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co..  81  So.  641, 
119  Miss.  897. 
33  C.J.  P  1060  note  21—49  C.J.  P  244 

note  13. 
Liability  established 

The  court's  decision  overruling  de- 
fendant's plea  in  abatement  on  fact 
issue  establishes  defendant's  liabil- 
ity and  deprives  it  of  trial  on  mer- 
its, so  as  to  entitle  plaintiff  to  final 
judgment,  unless  Judge  permits  de- 
fendant to  answer  over  by  special 
order  or  action  equivalent  to  such 
order. — Krinsky  v.  Stevens  Coal 
Sales  Co.,  36  N.B.2d  411,  309  Mass. 
528. 

81.  Cal.— • Bakewell  v.  Bakewell,  180 
P.2d  975,  21  Cal.2d  224. 

Okl.— Consumers'  Oil  &  Refining  Co. 
v.  Bilby,  217  P.  484,  91  Okl.  282. 

Tenn. — Vineyard  v.  Vineyard,  170  S. 
W.2d  917,  26  Tenn.App.  232. 

Final  and  interlocutory  decrees  see 
Equity  §  582. 

Finality  of  determination  as  affect- 
ing conclusiveness  of  adjudication 
see  infra  §  699. 

22.  Cal. — Anderson  v.  Great  Repub- 
lic Life  Ins.  Co.,  106  P.2d  75,  41 
Cal.App.2d  181 — Howard  v.  How- 
ard, 261  P.  714,  716,  87  CaLApp. 
20. 

111.— Brauer  Machine  &  Supply  Co., 
for  Use  of  Bituminous  Casualty 
Corporation  v.  Parkhill  Truck  Co., 
50  N.B.2d  836,  383  111.  569,  148 
A.L..R.  1208. 


Different  meaningi 

Although  "final"  is  frequently  used 
with  "judgment"  to  distinguish  from 
interlocutory  orders  or  Judgments 
in  the  same  court,  "final  judgment" 
also  describes  a  determination  effec- 
tive to  conclude  further  proceedings 
.n  the  same  cause  by  appeal  or  oth- 
erwise, especially  where  time  within 
which  to  act  is  limited  to  run  from 
"final  judgment".— Northwestern 
Wisconsin  Blec.  Co.  v.  Public  Serv- 
ice Commission,  22  N.W.2d  472,  248 
Wis.  479. 

23.    Mich.— Wurzer  v.  Geraldine,  256 

N.W.    439,    441,   268    Mich.    286. 
Okl.— Consolidated   School   Dist   No. 
15  of  Texas  County  v.  Green,   71 
P.2d   712,    714,    180   Okl,   567. 
Pa.— Frank   P.    Miller   Paper   Co.   v. 
Keystone  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  118  A. 
565,  566,  275  Pa.  40. 
Tenn.— Vineyard  v.  Vineyard,  170  S. 

W.2d  917,  920,  26  TennJVpp.  232. 
Tex.— Lubell  v.  Button,  Civ.App.,  164 

S.W.2d  41,  44,  error  refused. 
Utah.— Hartford  Accident  &  Indem- 
nity Co.  v.  Clegg,  135  P.2d  919,  91 
103  Utah  414. 
Vt. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  State  v. 
Green    Mountain    Power    Corpora- 
tion, 28  A.2d  698,  699. 
33  C.J.  p  1061  note  30. 

The  general  test  for  determining 
whether  a  judgment,  is  "final"  is 
that,  when  no  issue  is  left  for  future 
consideration  except  fact  of  compli- 
ance or  noncompliance  with  terms  of 
the  first  decree,  decree  is  final,  but, 
where  anything  further  in  the  nature 
of  judicial  action  on  the  part  of  the 
court  is  essential  to  a  final  deter- 
mination o?  the  rights  of  the  par- 
ties, the  decree  is  "interlocutory". — 
Bakewell  v.  Bakewell,  130  P.2d  975, 
978,  21  CaUd  224— Lyon  v.  Goss 
123  P.2d  11,  17,  19  Cal.2d  659. 
Similar  definitions 

(1)  A    "final    decree"    is    one    in 
which    nothing   in    the   case    is    re- 
served by  the  court  for  further  de- 
cision.— Sample  v.  Romine,  10  So.2d 
346,  193  Minn.  706. 

(2)  A  "final  judgment"  is  one  that 

35 


brings  suit  to  a  conclusion  and  bars 
recovery  in  any  other  litigation  be- 
.ween  the  same  parties  on  the  same 
slaim. — Ranallo  v.  Hinman  Bros. 
Const.  Co.,  D.C.Ohio,  49  F.Supp.  920, 
924,  affirmed,  C.C.A.,  Buckeye  Union 
Casualty  Co.  v.  Kanallo,  135  F.2d 
921,  certiorari  denied  64  S.Ct.  47, 
320  U.S.  745,  88  L.Ed.  442. 

(3)  A    "final     judgment"     is     one 
which    finally    disposes    of    parties' 
rights   either  on   entire   controversy 
or    on    some    definite    and    separate 
branch  thereof. — Brauer  Machine  & 
Supply  Co.,   for  Use  of  Bituminous 
Casualty     Corporation     v.     Parkhill 
Truck  Co.,  50  N.B.2d  836,  840,  383  111. 
569,   148  A.L.R.   1208— General  Elec- 
tric Co.  v.  Gellman  Mfg.  Co.,  48  N.B. 
2d  451,  318  Ill.App.  644. 

(4)  A     "final     judgment"     is     one 
which   determines    and    disposes    of 
merits  by  declaring  that  plaintiff  is 
or  is   not  entitled  to   recover  by  a 
remedy  chosen. — Irving  Trust  Co,  v* 
Kaplan,  Fla.,  20  So.2d  351,  354. 

(5)  A    judgment    is    a    "final"   OP 
'definitive   Judgment"    when   it   set- 
tles the  issues  presented  in  the  main 
controversy  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  will  have  the  force  of  res  judicata 
if  it   is   not   reversed  on    appeal. — 
Metairie    Bank    in     Liquidation    v. 
Lecler,  La.App.,  4  So.2d  573,  575. 

(6)  "Final    judgments"    are    such 
as  at  once  put  an  end  to  the  action 
by  declaring  that  plaintiff  has  or  has 
not  entitled  himself  to  recover. 
Ky. — Faulkner  v.  Faulkner,  110  S.W. 

2d  465,  470,  270  Ky.  693. 
Pa.— Frank   P.   Miller   Paper  Co.  v. 
Keystone  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  118  A. 
565,  275  Pa.  40. 

(7)  There  must  be  findings  of  feet 
and  conclusions  of  law  to  constitute 
a  "final  judgment"  on  the  merits. — 
Hartford  Accident  &  Indemnity  Co, 
v.  Clegg,  135  P.2d  919,  922,  103  Utah 
414. 

(8)  Other  definitions. 

U.S. — In  re  Roney,  C.C.A.Ind.t  139 
F.2d  175,  177 — Karl  Kiefer  MacJb. 
Co.  v.  U.  S.  Bottlers  Machinery  Co., 


§11 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.& 


interlocutory  judgment  is  one  which  does  not  so 
dispose  of  the  cause,  but  reserves  or  leaves  some 


further  question  or  direction  for  future  determina- 
tion.2*   Under  the  definition  of  a  judgment  as  the 


l.,  108  F.2d  469.  470— Ross 
v.  International  Life  Ins.  Co.,  CO. 
A.Tenn.,  24  F.2d  345,  346 — G.  Am- 
sinck  &  Co.  v.  Springfield  Grocer 
Co.,  C.C.A.MO.,  7  F.2d  855.  858— 
Charles  Needing-  Trucking  Co.  v. 
U.  S.,  D.C.N.J.,  29  F.Supp.  637,  544. 

Ala,— Gandy  v.  Hauler,  16  So.2d  305, 
307,  245  Ala.  167. 

Cal. — Swarthout  v.  Gentry*  App.,  167 
P.2d  501,  503— Vallera  v.  Vallera, 
148  P.2d  694,  696,  64  Cal. App. 2d 
266 — Potvin  v.  Pacific  Greyhound 
Lines,  20  P.2d  129,  WO,  130  Cal. 
App.  610. 

Kan. — Smith  v.  Power,  127  P.2d  452, 
454,  155  Kan.  612. 

Ky. — Bell  Grocery  Co.  v.  Booth,  61 
S.W.2d  879,  880,  250  Ky.  ,21— Cau- 
dill  Coal  Co.  v.  Charles  Rosenheim 
&  Co.,  258  S.W.  315,  316,  201  Ky. 
758— Blackburn  v.  Blackburn,  254 
S.W.  915,  917,  200  Ky.  310. 

Me.— Sawyer  v.  White,  132  A.  421, 
422,  125  Me.  206. 

Mich.— Wurzer  v.  Geraldine,  256  N. 
W.  439,  446,  268  Mich.  286. 

Miss. — Johnson  v.  Mississippi  Power 
Co.,  196  So.  642,  643,  189  Miss. 
67. 

N.C.— Hanks  v.  Southern  "Public  Util- 
ities Co.,  186  S.E.  252,  257,  210  N. 
C.  312— Never  Fail  Land  Co.  v. 
Cole,  149  S.B.  585,  588,  197  N.C. 
452. 

Ohio. — State  ex  rel.  Curran  v. 
Brookes,  50  N.E.2d  995,  998,  142 
Ohio  St  107— Vida  v.  Parsley, 
App.,  47  N.B.2d  663,  665. 

Okl.— Methvin  v.  Methvin,  127  P.2d 
186,  188,  191  Okl.  177. 

Pa. — Sundheim  v.  Beaver  County 
Building  £  Loan  Ass'n,  14  A.2d 
349,  351,  140  Pa.Super.  529. 

Tex.— Lanier  v.  Parnell.  Civ.App., 
190  S.W.2d  421,  423— City  of  Gil- 
mer  v.  Moyer,  Civ. App.,  181  S.W. 
2d  1020,  1022— Garcia  v.  Jones, 
Civ.App.,  147  S.W.2d  925,  926,  er- 
ror dismissed,  judgment  correct — 
Railroad  Commission  v.  Humble 
Oil  &  Refining-  Co.,  Civ.App.,  119 
S.W.2d  728,  error  refused — Holmes 
v.  Klein,  Civ.App.,  59  S.W.2d  171, 
172,  error  dismissed — Dallas  Cof- 
fee &  Tea  Co.  v.  Williams,  Civ. 
App.,  45  S.W.2d  724,  728,  error  dis- 
missed. 

Va.— Williams  v.  Dean,  9  S.E.2d  327, 
329,  175  Va.  435. 

25  C.J.  p  1130  notes  54-56 — 33  C.J. 
p  1061  note  30  [a]. 

Synonymous  with,  "final   determina- 
tion" 
"Final    Judgment"    Is    synonymous 

with    "final     determination,*'    which. 

means  the  final  settling  of  the  rights* 

of  the  parties  to  the  action  beyond 

all    appeal. — Quarture   v.    Allegheny 

County,    14   A-2d   676t    578,   141   Pa, 

Super.  356,  J 


held 

(1)  Judgment  expressly  or  by  nee* 
essary   implication   disposing  of  all 
parties  and  issues  Is  final. — Southern 
Pac.  Co.  v.  TJlmer,  Tex.Com. App.,  286 
S.W.    193— Duke    v.    Gilbreath,    Tex. 
Civ.App.,    2    S.W.2d    324,    error    dis- 
missed— Adcock    v.     Shell,     Tex.Civ. 
App.,  273  S.W.  $00. 

(2)  A    judgment    may    be    "final" 
whether  it  is  based  on  a  determina- 
tion of  a  question  of  law  or  a  ques- 
tion of  fact.— McWilliams  v.  Black- 
ard,  COAJVrk.,  96  F.2d  43. 

(3)  Judgment    may    be    final    al- 
though It  fails  to  award  writ  of  exe- 
cution for  its  enforcement. — Reed  v. 
Bryant,   Tex.Clv.App.,    291  S.W.   605. 

(4)  Judgment  requiring  defendant 
to  pay  amount  into  court  to  await 
determination    of   conflicting   claims 
in  another  court  was,  as  between  the 
parties,   final. — Graham  Refining  Co. 
v.    Graham   Oil   Syndicate,    tex.Civ. 
App.,  262  S.W.  142. 

(5)  A  judgment  dismissing  cause 
as    to    one    defendant    after    giving 
peremptory  direction  to  find  for  such 
defendant    and    rendering    judgment 
for  plaintiff  against  another  defend- 
ant on  verdict  for  plaintiff  was  final 
disposition   of   issues   as   to   former 
defendant. — Newdiger       v.       Kansas 
City,  114  S.W.2d  1047,  342  Mo.  252. 

(6)  Where  a  plaintiff's  alternative 
plea  was  not  on  trial  and  was  effec- 
tually disposed  of  by  award,  on  her 
principal  cause  of  action,   judgment 
predicated  on  ultimate  issues  raised 
by  both  pleading  and  evidence  was  a 
"final  judgment." — Connor  v.  Buford, 
Tex.Civ.App.,    142    S.W.2d   592,   error 
dismissed,    judgment   correct. 

(7)  Other  judgments. 

U.S. — Ashwander  v.  Tennessee  Val- 
ley Authority,  D.C.Ala.,  19  *F.Supp. 
190,  reversed  on  other  grounds, 
C.C.A.,  Alabama  Power  Co.  v.  Ten- 
nessee Valley  Authority,  92  F.2d 
412. 

Cal. — Ochoa  v.  McCush,  2  P.2d  357, 
216  Cal.  426— Griffith  v.  List,  9  P. 
2d  529,  122  Cal. App.  125. 

111.— Gunn  v.  Brltt,  39  N.E.2d  76,  78, 
313.  ULApp.  13. 

Ky.— Struve  v.  Lebus,  136  S.W.2d 
554,  281  Ky.  407— Crawford  v.  Rid- 
dle, 45  S.W.2d  463,  241  Ky.  839— 
First  State  Bank  v.  Thacker*s 
Adm'x,  284  S.W.  1020,  215  Ky.  186 
—Watts  v.  Noble,  262  S.W.  1114, 
203  Ky.  699. 

La. — Castelluccio  v.  Cloverland  Dairy 
Products  Co.,  115  So.  796,  165  La. 
606,  conformed  to  8  1/a.App.  723 
— Spence  v.  Spence,  107  So.  294, 
160  La.  430. 

Mo.— Chance  v.  Franke,  153  S.W.2d 
378.  348  Mo.  402— State  ex  reL 

36 


Maple  v.  Mulloy,  15  S.W.2d  809, 
322  Mo.  281. 

N.C.— Nash  v.  City  of  Monroe,  158 
S.B.  384,  200  N.C.  729. 

Okl.— Davis  v.  Baum.  133  P.2d  889, 
192  Okl.  85 — Consolidated  School 
Dist.  No.  15  of  Texas  County  v. 
Green,  71  P.2d  712,  714,  180  Okl. 
567 — Consumers'  Oil  &  Refining 
Co.  v.  Bilby,  217  P.  484,  91  Okl. 
282. 

S.D.— Western  Bldg.  Co.  v.  J.  C.  Pen- 
ney Co.,  245  N.W.  909,  60  S.D.  630. 

Tex.— Grayson  v.  Johnson,  Civ.App., 
181  S.W.2d  312— Doornbos  v.  Loon- 
ey,  Civ. App.,  159  S.W.2d  155,  error 
refused — Runyon  v.  Valley  Pub. 
Co.,  Civ.App.,  147  S.W.2d  521,  error 
refused — Pfeifer  v.  Johnson,  Civ. 
App.,  70  S.W.2d  203— Bell  v.  Rog- 
ers, Civ.App.,  58  S.W.2d  878— 
Stokes  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Kramer,  Civ. 
App.,  44  S.W.2d  822— Duke  v.  Gil- 
breath,  Civ.App.,  2  S.W.2d  324, 
error  dismissed— Phillips  v.  Jones, 
Civ.App.,  283  S.W.  298. 

Utah. — Logan  City  v.  Utah  Power  & 
Light  Co.,  16  P.2d  1097,  86  Utah 
340,  adhered  to  44  P.2d  698.  86 
Utah  354. 

33  C.J.  p  1061  note  30  [el. 

34.    Cal. — Swarthout.v.  Gentry,  App., 

167  P.2d  501,  503. 
Okl. — Consumers'  Oil  &  Refining  Co. 

v.   Bilby,   217   P.   484,   489,   91  Okl. 

282. 
Pa.— Frank    P.    Miller   Paper  Co.   v. 

Keystone  Coal  &  Coke 'Co.,  118  A. 

565,  566,  275  Pa.  40. 
Tex. — In  re   Greer,   TexCiv.App.,  41 

S.W.2d  351. 
33  C.J.  p  1061  note  30. 
Similar  definitions    ' 

(1)  An    "interlocutory    decree"    is 
one  that  Is  rendered  in  the  progress 
of  a  lawsuit,   or  between  the  com- 
mencement and  the  end  of  the  suit. 
—In  re  Byrne,  191  So.  729,  730,  193 
La.  566. 

(2)  It    is    a    judgment   made    for 
purpose  of  ascertaining  some  matter 
of    fact    or   law,    preparatory    to    a 
final   decree. — Vineyard  v.  Vineyard, 
170   S.W.2d  917,  26  Tenn.App.  232. 

(3)  An    "Interlocutory    judgment'* 
Is  one  which  determines   some  pre- 
liminary   or    subordinate    point    or 
plea,  or  settles  some  step,  question 
or   default    arising   in   the   progress 
of  the  cause,  but  does  not  adjudicate 
the  ultimate  rights  of  the  parties. — 
Consumers'  Oil  &  Refinkig  Co.  v.  Bll- 
by,  217  P.  484,  489,  91  Okl.   282. 

(4)  A    judgment    which    reserves 
for  adjudication  by  the  court  at  a 
later  date  some  Issues  between  the 
parties  to  the  action  and  only  .par- 
tially   or    incompletely   disposes   of 
the  parties  or  issues  is  an  "inter- 
locutory judgment" — Manley  v.  Ra- 


49    O.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§11 


final  determination  of  the  rights  of  the  parties,  as 
discussed  supra  §  1,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
an  interlocutory  judgment  in  the  strictly  technical 
sense  of  the  term ;  such  interlocutory  judgments  are 
in  fact  interlocutory  orders.26  The  term  "inter- 
locutory judgment"  is,  however,  a  convenient  one 
to  indicate  the  determination  of  steps  or  proceed- 
ings in  a  cause  preliminary  to  final  judgment,  and 
in  such  sense  the  term  is  in  constant  and  general 
use  even  in  code  states.26  In  determining  whether 
a  judgment  is  interlocutory  or  final,  it  should  be 


zien,  Tex.Civ.App.,  172  S.W.2d  798, 
799 — Lubell  v.  Sutton,  Tex.Civ.App., 
164  S.W.2d  41,  46,  error  refused. 

(5)  Judgment  is  "interlocutory" 
where  it  is  one  substantially  dispos- 
ing- of  merits,  ,but  leaving  issue  of 
fact  to  be  decided  or  some  condi- 
tion to  be  performed,  in  order  fully 
to  determine  the  rights  of  the  par- 
ties.— Security  State  Bank  v.  Monona 
Golf  Club,  252  N.W.  287,  289,  213 
Wis.  581. 

Judgments  held  interlocutory 

(1)  Judgments   based   on   citation 
by    publication    are    "Interlocutory" 
only  until  such  time  as  their  valid- 
ity is  actually  established  by  proper 
proceeding  in  court  of  competent  Ju- 
risdiction having  parties  in  interest 
before     it. — Seymour    v.     Schwartz, 
Tex.Civ.App.,   172   S.W.2d  138. 

(2)  A  judgment  which  recited  that 
the  court,   on  consideration  of  com- 
plaint, service  of  summons,  answer, 
and  evidence  introduced  by  plaintiffs, 
found  that  defendant  was  liable  to 
plaintiffs  in  amounts  "that  may  be 
adjudged  later  by  jury  properly  em- 
paneled to  hear  the  evidence  pertain- 
ing to  the  amount  of  damages",  etc., 
was  an  "interlocutory  judgment"  in 
which  defendant's  liability  was  prop- 
erly determined  and  amount  of  dam- 
ages  left    to   be   assessed. — Checker 
Gab  Co.  of  Hot  Springs  v.  Leeper, 
182  S.W.2d  871,  207  Ark.  799. 

(3)  A  decree  which  in  the  first  in- 
stance is  to  be  a  "decree  nisi"  but  is 
to  become  absolute  on  expiration  of 
stipulated  period  after  entry  thereof 
Is  deemed  an  "interlocutory  decree." 
— In  re  Hanrahan's  Will,  194  A.  471, 
109  Vt  108. 

(4)  Other  judgments. 

Ala.— Indian  Head,  Mills  of  Alabama 

v*  Ashworth,  110  So.  565,  215  Ala. 

348 — Blankenship  v.  Hail,  106  So. 

594,  214  Ala.   95— Hill  v.  Hill,  100 

So.  340,  211  Ala.  293. 
Nev.— Nevada    First    Nat    Bank    of 

Tonopah  v.  Lamb,   271  P.  691,  51 

Nev.  162. 
Pa.— Markofski  v.  .Tanks,  146  A.  569, 

297     Pa.     74 — Commonwealth     v. 

Provident  Trust  Co.,  92  Pittsb.Leg. 

J.  348,  58  York  LegJlec.  101. 
Tex. — Fisher    v.    Wilson,    Civ.App., 


185  S.W.2d  186,  affirmed  Wilson  v. 
Fisher,  Sup.,  188  S.W.2d  150— Kline 
v.  Power,  Civ.App.,  114  S.W.2d  617 
— McCurley  v.  Texas  Indemnity 
Ins.  Co.,  Civ.App.,  62  S.W.2d  992, 
error  refused. 
Vt.— Morgan  v.  Gould,  119  A.  517,  96 

Vt  275. 
Va.— Freezer  v.  Miller,  176  S.B.  159, 

163  Va.  180. 

33  C.J.  p  1061  note  30  [f]. 
Process  and  Jurisdiction 

To  render  interlocutory  Judgment, 
it  is  necessary  for  court  to  find  that 
process  had  been  served  on  defend- 
ant and  that  court  had  jurisdiction 
of  his  person. — Hart  v.  Foster,  109 
S.W.2d  504,  error  dismissed. 

25.  Mo. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Bar- 
low v.  gcott  85  S.W.2d  504,  519. 

N.D. — Universal    Motors    v.    Coman, 
15  N.W.2d  73,  73  N.D.  337. 

S.D.— Western  Bldg.  Co.  v.  J.  C.  Pen- 
ney Co.,  245  N.W.  909,  60  S.D.  630. 

33  C.J.  p  1062  note  32. 

Synonymous  terms 
Term  "interlocutory  Judgment"  Is 

synonymous    with    term    "order." — 

Sobieski  v.  City  of  Chicago,  241  111. 

App.   180,   error  dismissed   156  N.E. 

279,  325  111.  259. 

26.  Ark.— Checker  Cab   Co.   of  Hot 
Springs  v.  Leeper,  182  S.W.2d  871, 
207  Ark.  799. 

Conn. — Preston    v.    Preston,    128    A. 

292,  102  Conn.  96. 

C.J.  p  1062  note  33. 
Statutory  recognition 

(1)  Interlocutory  judgments  or  de- 
crees  are  expressly  recognized  un- 
der  some   statutory    provisions. — In 
re  Bailey,  40  N.T.S.2d  746,  749,   265 
App.Div.  758,  affirmed  50  N.E.2d  653, 
291  N.Y.  534—33  C.J.  p  1062  note  33 

(2)  The  legislative  purpose,  in  en- 
acting statute  authorizing  interlocu- 
tory judgment,  was  not  to  authorize 
a  mere  tentative  or  proposed  judg- 
ment  but.  one   which  would   finally 
dispose  of  a  portion  of  a  controver- 
sy.— Kickapoo  Development  Corpora- 
tion  v.    Kickapoo    Orchard   Co.,    285 
N.W.  354,  231  Wis.  458. 

27.  Tex. — Thomas    v.    International 
Seamen's  Union  of  America,  Civ. 
App.,  101  S.W.2d  328.  1 

37 


construed  in  accordance  with  the  conduct  of  the 
parties  and  the  intention  of  the  court  gathered 
from  the  language  of  the  judgment  or  decree.2? 

A  judgment  may  be  final  although  it  does  not  de- 
termine the  rights  of  the  parties,  if  it  ends  the  par- 
ticular suit,2*  such  as  a  judgment  of  dismissal,  non- 
suit,^ or  discontinuance,30  or  a  judgment  abating 
an  action.3i  Also  a  judgment  may  be  final  although 
further  directions  may  be  necessary  to  carry  it  into 
effect,32  although  further  proceedings  remain  to  be 
taken  in  court  to  make  the  judgment  effective,**  Or 

The  character  of  the  decree  or 
Judgment  is  an  important  factor  to 
be  considered.— Karl  Kiefer  Mach. 
Co.  v.  U.  S.  Bottlers  Machinery  Co., 
C.C.A.I11.,  108  F.2d  469. 

28.  Cal. — Fisch    &   Co.    v.    Superior 
Court    in    and    for    Los    Angeles 
County,  43  P.2d   855,   6  Cal.App.2d 
21. 

Tex.— Witty  v.  Rose,  Civ.App.,  148  S. 

W.2d   962,    error  dismissed. 
38  C.J.  p  1063  note  34. 

29.  Ariz. — Hartford  Accident  &  In- 
demnity  Co.   v.    Sorrellsi    69    P.2d 
240,  50  Ariz.  90. 

Cal.— Fisch  &  Co.  v.  Superior  Court 
in  and  for  Los  Angeles  County  43 
P.2d  855,  6  Cal.App.2d  21. 

Mass. — Sullivan  v.  Martinelli.  158  N 
E.  662,  261  Mass.  261. 

Tex.— Renfroe  v.  Johnson,  177  S.W. 
3d  600,  142  Tex.  251— Ley  v.  Ley. 
Civ.App.,  62  S.W.2d  503,  error  dis- 
missed. 

33  C.J.  p  1063  note  35. 

Dismissal  fop  failure  to  file  boad  for 
costs 

Tex— Witty  v.  Rose,  Civ.App.,  148 
S.W.2d  962,  error  dismissed. 

30.  Conn.— Foley      v.      George      A.  • 
Douglas    &    Bro.,    185    A.    70,    121 
Conn.  377. 

31.  Cal.— Watterson  v.  Owens  River 
Canal  Co.,  210  P.   625,  190  Cal.  88 
— San  Francisco  Breweries  v.   Su- 
perior Court  in  and  for  City  and 
County   of   San   Francisco,    251  P. 
935,  80  CaLApp.  433. 

32.  U.S. — In  re  Casaudoumecq,  D.C. 
Cal.,  46  F.Supp.  718. 

Ind.— Rooker  v.   Fidelity  Trust   Co., 

151  N.E.   610,  198  Ind.  207. 

y.— Watts  v.  Noble,  262  S.W.  1114, 

203  Ky.  644. 
Mo.— State  ex  rel.  Maple  v.  Mulloy, 

15    S.W.2d   809,    322   Mo.   281. 
33  C.J.  p  1063  note  36. 

33.  U.S.— In  re  Casaudoumecct,  D,C. 
Cal.,  46  F.Supp.  718. 

Ky.— Alexander  v,  Tipton,   291  S.W. 

1019,  218  Ky.  666. 
Tex.— Lanier    v.    Parnell,     Civ.App., 

190  S.W.2d  421. 
Proceedings  incidental  to  execution 

(1)  Decree  may  be  partly  final  and 
partly  interlocutory;  final  as  to  de- 
termination of  all  issues,  and  inter- 


§11 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


although  the  court  reserves  the  right  to  modify  the 
judgment.8*  The  finality  of  a  judgment  is  not  af- 
fected by  the  fact  that  it  constitutes  an  erroneous 
decision  as  to  the  law  or  the  facts.36 

On  the  other  hand,  a  judgment  is  not  generally 
considered  final  where  further  judicial  action  is  nec- 
essary in  order  fully  and  finally  to  settle  the  rights 
of  the  parties,36  as  where  the  judgment  settles  only 
some  of  several  issues  of  law  or  fact,37  or  does  not 
dispose  of  the  case  as  to  all  the  parties  ;38  but  judg- 
ments determining  particular  matters  in  controver- 


sy, and  of  such  a  nature  that  they  could  be  imme- 
diately enforced  and  by  their  enforcement  deprive 
the  party  against  whom  they  were  rendered  of  any 
benefit  which  he  might  obtain  from  an  appeal  at  any 
subsequent  stage  of  the  proceedings,  have  been 
deemed  final.39  A  judgment  is  not  final  which  is  to 
become  effective  only  on  the  happening  of  a  future 
event  or  contingency40  or  which  is  made  subject  to 
revision  at  a  future  specified  date.41 

A  judgment  ordinarily  is  final  when  rendered  in 
pursuance  of  a  general  verdict,42  or  on  submission 


locutory  as  to  mode  of  execution. — 
Perry  v.  West  Coast  Bond  &  Mort- 
gage Co.,  29  P.2d  279,  136  Cal.App. 
557. 

(2)  A  Judgment  over  against  prin- 
cipal and  in  favor  of  surety  on  fidel- 
ity bond  was  "final",  notwithstand- 
ing it  was  made  contingent  on  pay- 
ment by  surety  of  primary  judg- 
ment against  it  on  the  bond,  since 
all  litigated  rights  relating  to  mat- 
ter involved  were  determined  and 
further  proceedings  required  in  com- 
plete satisfaction  of  decree  were 
merely  incidental  to  its  proper  exe- 
cution.— American  Employers'  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Dallas  Joint  Stock  Land  Bank, 
Tex.Civ.App.,  170  S.W.2d  546,  error 
refused. 

34.  Tex. — Graham  v.  Coolidge,  70  S. 
W.   231,   30   Tex.Civ.App.   273. 

35.  Cal. — In    re    Gardiner's  .Estate, 
114  P.2d  643,  45  Cal.App. 2 d  559. 

Tex. — Snell  v.  Knowles,  Civ.App.,  87 
S.W.2d  871,   error  dismissed. 

36.  Mo. — State   ex  rel.  and  to   Use 
of  Abeille  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Sevier, 
73    S.W.2d    361,    335    Mo.    269,    cer- 
tiorari  denied  State  of  Missouri  ex 
rel.    and   to   Use    of   Abeille    Fire 
Ins.  Co.  of  Paris  v.  Sevier,  55  S. 
Ct.  99,  293  U.S.  585,  79  L.Ed.   680. 

Va. — Massanutten  Bank  of  Strasburg 
v.   Glaize,   14   S.B.2d   285,   177  Va, 
519. 
Reference  for  Judicial  purpose 

Generally  a  decree  fixing  liability 
and  rights  of  the  parties  and  refer- 
ring the  case  to  a  master  or  subor- 
dinate tribunal  for  a  judicial  pur- 
pose, such  as  the  statement  of  an 
account,  on  which  a  further  decree 
is  to  be  entered,.  Is  not  a  "final  de- 
cree."— Swarthout  v.  Gentry,  Cal. 
App.,  167  0?.2d  501. 

37.  Mo. — Corpus     Juris     quoted    in 
Barlow   v.    Scott,    85    S.W.2d    504, 
519. 

Okl.— Hurley  v.  Hurley,  127  P.2d  147, 

191  Okl.  194. 
Tenn. — Vineyard    v.    Vineyard,     170 

S.W.2d  917,  26  Tenn.App.  232. 
Tex. — Wood  v.  Gulf  Production  Co., 

Clv.App.,    100    S.W.2d    412 — Harris 

v.  O'Brien,  Civ.App.,  54  S.W.2d  277  j 


—Duke    v.    Gilbreath,    Civ.App.,    2 
S.W.2d  324,   error  dismissed. 
33  C.J.  p  1063  note  38. 

"A  case  is  never  finally  determined 
when  any  controversial  matter,  a 
part  thereof,  is  open  and  undeter- 
mined."— In  re  Returns  From  Her- 
minle  Election  Dist.  of  Sewickley 
Tp.,  Westmoreland  County,  192  A. 
130,  132,  326  Pa,  321. 

Specific  disposition  unnecessary 

It  is  not  essential  to  the  finality  of 
a  Judgment  that  it  in  express  terms 
specifically  dispose  of  each  issue, 
since  the  fact  that  judgment  dispos- 
es of  a  particular  issue  may  be  in- 
ferred from  other  provisions  there- 
of, provided  such  inference  follows 
as  a  necessary  Implication. — Gamble 
v.  Banneyer,  151  S.W.2d  586,  137  Tex. 
7. 

Where  several  distinct  causes  of 
action  ore  united  in  the  same  suit, 
the  rule  that  a  judgment  to  be  final 
must  dispose  of  the  entire  case  does 
not  apply. — Shamburger  v.  Glenn, 
Tex.Civ.App.,  255  S.W.  815—33  C.J.  p 
1063  note  38  [d]. 

38.  Mo. — Corpus  Juris  Quoted  In 
Barlow  v.  Scott,  85  S.W.2d  604, 
519— Stelger  v.  City  of  Ste.  Gene- 
vieve,  141  S.W.2d  233,  235  Mo.App. 
579. 

Tex. — Gathings  v.  Robertson,  Com. 
App..  276  S.W.  218— Minnock  v. 
Garrison,  Civ.App:,  144  S:W.2d  328 
— Wood  v.  Gulf  Production  Co., 
Civ.App.,  100  S.W.2d  412— Duke  v. 
Gilbreath,  Civ.App.,  2  S.W.2d  324, 
error  dismissed. 

33  C.J.  p  1063  note  39. 

Real  parties 

A  judgment  that  fails  to  dispose 
of  the  real  parties  to  the  litigation, 
either  expressly  or  by  necessary  im- 
plication, is  not  final. — Wilson  v. 
Cone,  Tex.Civ.App.,  179  S.W.2d  784. 

Disposal  by  implication 

A  Judgment,  to  be  "final,"  must 
dispose  of  all  parties  and  issues  In 
the  case,  but  disposal  of  parties  need 
not  be  by  name,  necessary  implica- 
tion being  sufficient. — Texas  Life  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Miller,  Tex.Clv.App.,  114  S.W. 
2d  600. 

38 


39.  Cal. — Perry  v.  West  Coast  Bond 
&  Mortgage  Co.,  29  P.2d  279,   136 
CaLApp.  557. 

Ky.— Watts  v.  Noble,  262  S.W.  1114, 

203  Ky.  644. 
Ohio.— Speidel  v.  Schaller,  55  N.E.2d 

346,  73  Ohio  App.  141. 
Tex. — Seby   v.    Craven   Lumber    Co., 

Civ. App.,  259  S.W.  1093. 
33  C.J.  p  1063  note  40. 
Portion  of  land 

Judgment  awarding  half  of  land 
in  controversy  to  defendant  without 
determining  ownership  of  the  other 
half  was  final  as  to  half  awarded. — 
Duval  v.  Duval,  291  S.W.  488,  816 
Mo.  626. 

40.  Tex. — Echols     v.     Echols,     Civ. 
App.,  168  S.W.2d  282,  error  refused 
— Dodd  v.  Daniel,   Civ.App.,   89   S. 
W.2d  494. 

Conditional  judgments  generally  see 
infra  §  73. 

Compliance  with  conditions 

A  judgment  granting  plaintiff  an 
injunction,  but  which  requires  him 
to  comply  with  certain  conditions 
imposed  within  a  certain  number  of 
days,  and  provides  that,  in  the  event 
of  plaintiff's  failure  so  to  comply, 
the  judgment  shall  be  for  defend- 
ants, is  not  a  final  decree. — Consum- 
ers' Oil  &  Refining  Co.  v.  Bilby,  217 
P.  484,  91  Okl.  282. 
Judgment  held  not  contingent 

Agreed  provisions  in  judgment  for 
suspension  and  postponement  of  is- 
suance of  order  of  sale  under  Judg- 
ment until  judgment  debtor's  de- 
fault in  payment  of  any  stipulated 
installment  of  judgment  debt  to 
court  clerk  did  not  render  judgment 
indefinite,  or  prevent  it  from  being 
"final  judgment"  after  its  proper  en- 
try on  payment  of  first  installment 
as  there  was  no  further  contingency 
on  happening  of  which  court  might 
properly  be  required  to  perform  any 
further  judicial  function  in  connec- 
tion with  case. — Grayson  v.  Johnson, 
Tex.Civ.App.,  181  S.W.2d  312. 

41.  Tex. — Echols     v.     Echols,     Civ. 
App.,    168    S.W.2d    282,    error    re- 
fused. 

42.  Mo.— State    v.    Riley.    118    S.W. 
647,  219  Mo.  667. 

Pa.— In  re  Fulton,   51  Pa.  204. 


49 


JUDGMENTS 


§11 


of  the  entire  case  to  the  court,4*  or  on  submission 
for  decision  on  the  pleadings.44  A  judgment  or  de- 
cree by  consent  may  constitute  a  final  disposition  of 
a  cause.45  Judgment  upon  demurrer  to  any  of  the 
pleadings  in  chief  is  generally  final  unless  leave  to 
amend  or  to  plead  over  is  given,4«  in  which  case 
the  judgment  is  interlocutory.47  A  judgment  or  de- 
cree for  an  accounting  is  interlocutory  in  charac- 
ter.48 The  question  whether  a  particular  order  or 
judgment  is  final  or  interlocutory  most  frequently 
arises  as  a  question  of  appealability,  and  these  cas- 
es are  discussed  in  Appeal  and  Error  §§  94-108. 

b.  When  Judgment  Becomes  Final 

A  Judgment  Is  generally  considered  final  and  en- 
forceable as  soon  as  It  is  entered,  read,  and  signed  in 
open  court,  but  for  some  purposes  It  may  not  be  final 
until  a  later  time. 

For  most  purposes  a  judgment  will  be  considered 
final  and  enforceable  by  appropriate  writ  as  soon  as 


it  is  entered,  read,  and  signed  in  open  court,49  not- 
withstanding a  motion  for  new  trial  remains  undis- 
posed of,5<>  that  the  judgment  is  still  subject  to 
appellate  review,51  or  that  an  appeal  is  actually 
pending.52  A  judgment  is  not  "final"  for  some  pur- 
poses, however,  merely  because  execution  may  be 
issued  on  it,53  and  it  has  been  variously  held  that 
finality  attaches  to  the  judgment  only  at  the  end 
of  the  term  of  court  at  which  it  was  entered,54  or  at 
the  end  of  a  specified  period  of  time  after  the  date 
of  its  rendition,55  or  after  the  time  for  filing  mo- 
tions to  prevent  entry  of  judgment  has  expired  with- 
out such  motions  being  filed,  or,  if  filed,  after  they 
are  determined.56  It  has  also  been  held  that  a  judg- 
ment becomes  final  only  after  expiration  of  the  time 
allowed  by  law  for  appeal  therefrom,  or,  if  an  ap- 
peal is  perfected,  after  the  judgment  is  upheld  in 
the  appellate  court,5?  but  this  rule  is  inapplicable 
if  the  judgment  is  not  subject  to  review.58 


43.  111.— Pease  v.  Roberts,  9  BLApp. 
132. 

33  C.J.  p  1063  note  42. 

44.  Wis.— Sanderson  v.  Herman,   85 
N.W.  141,  108  Wis.  662. 

33  C.J.  p  1063  note  43. 

45.  Ala. — Payne  v.  Graham,  102  So. 
729,    20   Ala-App.   439. 

Colo.— Heil   v.   Hubbell,   252   P.   343, 

80  Colo.  452. 
Ga.— Baker  v.  McCord,  162  S.B.  110, 

173  Ga.  819. 

46.  Ark.— Smart  v.   Alexander,    158 
S.W.2d  924,  203  Ark.  1147. 

Del.— Hazzard  v.  Alexander,   178   A. 

873,  6  W.W.Harr.  512. 
33  C.J.  p  1063  note  44. 

Provision  permitting  fiUaff  excep- 
tions or  statement  of  facts  did  not 
avoid  implication  that  judgment  dis- 
posed of  case  on  general  demurrer 
rather  than  on  the  merits. — Wells  v. 
Stonerock,  Teac.Com.App.,  12  S.W.2d 
961. 

The  ruling1  of  the  court  on  a  de- 
murrer is  not  a  final  order  unless 
final  judgment  is  entered  thereon. — 
Cooper  v.  Knuckles,  279  S.W.  1084, 
212  Ky.  608. 

47.  xj.s.— Morris  v.  Dunbar,  Pa,,  149 
F.  406,  79  C.C.A.  226. 

33  C.J.  p  1063  note  45. 

48.  Kan.— City  of  Eureka  v.  Kansas 
Electric  Power  Co.,  3  P.2d  484,  133 
Kan.  708. 

33  C.J.  P  1063  note  46. 

49.  Ind.— Whinery  v.  Kozacik,  22  N 
E.2d  829,  216  Ind.  136. 

Mass. — In  re  Keenan,  47  N.E.2d  12 

313  Mass.  186. 
Time   of  taking  effect  of  Judgmen 

see  infra  §  446. 
Signing  held  necessary 

It  has  been  held  that  a  judgmen 
is  not  final  until  it  is  signed.— Rive 


&  Rails  Terminals  v.  Louisiana  Ry. 

&  Nav.  Co.,  103  So.  331,  157  La.  1085 

— Young  v.   Geter,   La.App..   187   So. 
30. 

a  Ind.— Whinery  v.  Kozacik,  22  N. 
E.2d  829,  216  Ind.  13.6. 

Finality  of  determination  as  affect- 
ed by  proceedings  for  relief 
against  judgment  see  infra  §§  622, 
623.  700-702. 

L    Ohio.— Shoup  v.  Clemans,  App., 
31  N.E.2d  103. 

52.  U.S. — In  re  Maryanov,  D.C.N.Y., 
20  F.2d  939. 

tf.Y.— In  re  Bailey,  40  N.Y.S.2d  746, 
265  App.Div.  758,  affirmed  50  N.E. 
2d  653,  291  N.Y.  534. 

53.  Okl. — Methvin    v.    Methvin,    127 
P.2d  186,  191  Okl.  177. 

54.  TT.S.— Reed    v.     South    Atlantic 
S.    S.    Co.    of   Delaware,    D.C.Del., 
2  F.R.D.  475. 

Pa,— Salus  v.  Fogel,  153  A,  547,  302 
Pa.  268. 

55.  Fla. — Mabson  v.  Christ,  119  So. 
131,  96  Fla.  756. 

Ky.— Yumg  v.  Yung,  171  S.W.2d  1017, 
294  Ky.  369. 

Tex. — Gillette  Motor  Transport  Co, 
v  Wichita  Falls  &  Southern  R- 
Co.  Civ.App.,  170  S.W.2d  629,  man- 
damus denied  Wichita  Falls  &  S 
R.  Co.  v.  McDonald,  174  S.W.2d 
951,  141  Tex.  555. 

Va. — Carney  v.  Poinderter,  196  S.E 
639,  170  Va.  233. 
judgment  rendered  on  constructive 

service  does  not  become  final  unti 

two   years  from   rendition.— TrujilK 

v.  Piarote,   53   S.W.2d  466,   122  Tex. 

173. 

56.    U.S. — Moss  v.  Kansas  City  Lif 
Ins.    Co.,    C.C.A.MO.,    96    F.2d    10$ 

Mo— Lee's  Summit  Building  &  Loan 
Ass'n  v.  Cross,  134  S.W.2d  19,  34 

39 


Mo.     501— Williams    v.     Pemiscot 
County,    133    S.W.2d   417,    345    Mo. 
415 — Melenson  v.  Howell,  130  S.W. 
2d  555,  344  Mo.  1137. 
BSotton  for  new  trial 

(1)  Text  rule  applies  with  respect 
o  pendency  of  motion  for  new  trial. 

Fla,— Cole  v.  Walker  Fertilizer  Co., 
for  Use  and  Benefit  of  Walker,  1 
So.2d  864,  147  Fla.  1. 

Mo.— Cox  v.  Frank  L.  Schaab  Stove 
&  Furniture  Co.,  58  S.W.2d  700, 
332  Mo.  492,  transferred,  see  App., 
67  S.W.2d  790. 

Tex.— Rabinowitz  v.  Darnall,  Com. 
App.,  13  S.W.2d  73. 

(2)  Where   motion   for  «xew  trial 
was  never  heard,  the  motion  was  au- 
tomatically   overruled    at    the    end 
of  the  next  succeeding  term,  and  the 

udgment  then  became  final. — Kinney 
v.  Toelin  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.,  220 
P.  998,  74  Colo.  295. 

An  unauthorized  motion  will   not 
suffice  to  postpone  finality  of  a  ju- 
dicial   decision.— Lindsay   v.    Evans, 
Mo.App.,  174  S.W.2d  390. 
57.    Ga,— Powell  v.   Powell,   37   S.E. 

2d  191— Aud  v.  Aud,  35  S.E.2d  198, 

199  Ga.  714— Twilley  v.  Twilley,  24 

S.E.2d  46,  195  Ga,  297. 
Okl.— Methvin  v.   Methvin,   127  P.2d 

186,  191  Old.  177. 

judgment  is  final  when  defendant 
fails    to    perfect    appeal    therefrom 
within    time    prescribed   by   law. 
La.— Robinson  v.  Weiner,  105  So.  35, 

158    La.    979 — Albritton   v.    Nauls, 

App.,  15  So.2d  126,  128. 
Pa. — H.    Miller   &    Sons'    Co.   v.    Mt. 

Lebanon  Tp.,   163   A.   511;   309  Pa. 

221. 
Tex.— Bound  v.  Dillard,  Civ.App.,  140 

S.W.2d  520. 
58.    U.S.— In   re    Tapp,    D.C.Ky.,    61 

F.Supp.  594. 


§  12 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


§  12.    Judgments  in  Rem'  and  in  Per- 

sonam 

A  Judgment  in  rem  Is  an  adjudication  pronounced  on 
the  status  of  some  particular  subject  matter,  while  a 
judgment  In  personam  is  In  form  and  substance  between 
the  parties  claiming  the  right  in  controversy  and  does 
not  directly  affect  the  status  of  the  res. 

Judgments,  for  certain  purposes,  are  divided  into 
three  classes  designated  as  "judgments  in  perso- 
nam" or  "personal  judgments,"  "judgments  in  rem/' 
and  "judgments  quasi  in  rem/'65  A  judgment  or 
decree  in  rem  is  an  adjudication  pronounced  on  the 


status  of  some  particular  subject  matter  by  a  tri- 
bunal having  competent  authority  for  that  pur- 
pose.60 It  differs  from  a  judgment  or  decree  in 
personam  in  this,  that  the  latter  is  in  form  as  well 
as  in  substance  between  the  parties  claiming  the 
right  in  controversy,  and  does  not  directly  affect 
the  status  of  the  res,  but  only  through  the  action  of 
the  parties.61  Judgments  quasi  in  rem  are  rendered 
in  proceedings  quasi  in  rem  and  affect  not  only  title 
to  the  res,  but  likewise  the  right  in  and  to  it  pos- 
sessed by  individuals.62 


H.  ESSENTIALS  OP  EXISTENCE,  VALIDITY,  AND  REGULARITY  OP  JUDGMENT 

A.  IN  GENERAL 


§  13.    General  Statement 

It  Is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  Judgment  that  It 
be  based  on,  and  be  in  conformity  with,  recognized  prin- 
ciples and  fundamentals  of  law. 

It  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  judgment  that 
it  be  based  on,  and  be  in  conformity  with,  recog- 


nized principles  and  fundamentals  of  law.68  Where 
statutory  powers  are  conferred  on  a  court  of  in- 
ferior jurisdiction,  and  the  mode  of  executing  those 
powers  is  prescribed,  the  course  pointed  out  must 
be  substantially  pursued,  or  the  judgments  of  the 


59.  Kan,— Union   Central   Life   Ins.  | 
Co.  v. 'Irrigation  Loan  &  T.  Co.,  73  ; 
P,2d  72,  146  Kan.  550. 

Ky. — Combs  v.  Combs,  60  S.W.2d 
368,  249  Ky.  155,  8D  A.L.R.  1095. 

Actions  In  rem  and  in  personam  see 
Actions  $52. 

60.  111.— McCormick  y.    Blaine,    178 
N.B.  195,  197,  345  111.  461,  77  A.L. 
R.   1215— Wilson  v.  Smart,  155  N. 
B.  288,  291,  324  IH.  276— Austin  v. 
Royal  League,   147  N.E.   106,   109, 
316  111.  188. 

Ky. — Gayle  v.  Gayle,  192  S.W.2d  821; 
822— Booth  v.  Copley,  140  S.W.2d 
662,  666,  283  Ky.  23— Corpus  Juris 
quoted  in  Combs  v.  Combs,  60  S.W. 
2d  368,  369,  249  Ky,  156,  89  A.L.R. 
1095. 
Nev. — Perry  v.  Edmonds,  84  P.2d  711, 

713,  59  Nev.  60. 
33  C.J.  p  1063  note  48—34  C.J.  P  1171 

note  89. 

Judgments  in  rem  generally  see  in- 
fra §§  907-911. 

A  "special"  Judgment  is  a  judg- 
ment in  rem. — Smith  v.  Colloty,  55 
A.  805,  806,  69  N.J.Law  365. 

Judgments  held  not  in  rem 

(1)  Generally. 

Conn. — Whipple    v.    Fardig,    146    A. 

847,  109  Conn.  460. 
Iowa.— Ryke  v.  Ream,  234  N.W.  196, 

212  Iowa  126. 

(2)  In  equity  action  by  assignee 
of   insured's   creditor   to  have   pro- 
ceeds  of   life   policies   subjected  to 
creditor's  claim,  that  proceeds  of  one 
policy  were  on  deposit  in  bank  in  an- 
other state  did  not  make  the  decree 
«ne  in  rem  rather  than  in  personam. 


—In  re  Hazeldine's  Estate,  280  N.W. 
6C8,  225  Iowa  369. 

61.  Ky.— Gayle  v.  Gayle,  192  S.W.2d 
821,  822 — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in 
Combs  v.  Combs,  60  S.W.2d  "368, 
369,  249  Ky.  155,  89  A.L.R.  1095. 

33  C.J.  p  1064  note  49. 

The  term  "general  judgment"  has 
been  used  as  synonymous  with 
"judgment  in  personam." — Smith  v. 
Colloty,  55  A.  805,  806,  69  N.J.Law 
365. 

Judgment   held  in  personam 
Miss. — Jones  v.  McCormick,  110   So. 
591,  145  Miss.  566. 

Judgment  held  not  in  personam 
U.S.— Atchison,   T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co. 

v.   Wells,   C.C.A.Tex.,    285    F.    369, 

reversed  on  other  grounds  44  S. 

Ct.  469,  265  U.S.  101,  68  L.Ed.  928. 

The  inclusion  of  costs  in  judgment 
against  a  nonresident  did  not  render 
it  void  as  a  personal  judgment, 
where  the  judgment  recited  that  de- 
fendant was  duly  cited. — Reitz  v. 
Mitchell,  Tex.Civ.App.,  256  .S.W.  697. 

Equity  decrees  operate  in  person, 
am  and  at  most  only  collaterally  in 
rem. — McKixmey  v.  Mires,  26  P.2d 
169,  95  Mont  191. 

62.  Ky.— Combs  v.  Combs,   60   S.W. 
2d    363,    249    Ky.    155,    89    A.L.R. 
1095. 

63,  IT.S.— Duwamish  v.  TT.  S.,  79  Ct. 
Cl.  530,  certiorari  denied  55   S.Ct. 
913,  295  U.S.  755,  79  L.Ed.  1698. 

Utah.— Stockyards  Nat.  Bank  of 
South  Omaha  v.  Bragg,  245  P.  966, 
67  Utah  60. 

.      40 


Bond 

Judgment  Is  not  bad  because  trial 
judge  refuses  to  fix  amount  and  con- 
ditions of  supersedeas  bond. — Mc- 
Cann  v.  Proskauer,  112  So.  621,  93 
Fla.  383. 

Judgment  obtained  at  variance 
with  practice  of  court  or  contrary 
to  well  recognized  principles  and 
fundamentals  of  law  must  fall. — 
Stockyards  Nat.  Bank  of  South  Oma- 
ha v.  Bragg,  245  P.  966,  67  Utah  60. 

Legality 

The  requirement  that  Judgment  to 
be  valid  must  be  one  which  tho  court 
could  legally  render  means  only  that 
judgment  must  be  one  which  could 
have  been  legally  rendered  on  the 
issue  shown  by  the  pleadings  and 
evidence. — Wall  v.  Superior  Court  of 
Yavapai  County,  89  P.2d  024,  63  Ariz. 
344. 

Judgment  rendered  on  proceeding 
improperly  commenced  is  void. — Mu- 
tual Life  Ins.  Co.  of  New  York  v. 
Prever  Lumber  Co.,  3  N.Y*.S.2d  642, 
167  Misc.  662,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  6  N.7.S.2d  28,  168  Misc.  358. 

Unauthorized  practice  of  law 

Fact  that  judgments  were  procur- 
ed by  one  engaged  in  the  illegal 
practice  of  law  did  not  render  them 
void  or  voidable. — Bump  v.  Barnett, 
Iowa,  16  N.W.2d  579. 

Upholding  judgment 

Sound  public  policy  demands  that 
judgments  be  upheld,  where  it  can 
be  done*  without  violating  any  stat- 
ute or  settled  principle  of  law. — Bet- 
sill  v.  Betsill,  196  S.E.  381,  187  8.CL 
50. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§16 


court  will  be  void.**    A  cotirt  shoald  act  render 
a  decree  which  is  void  for  constitutional  reasons.65 

§  14.    Statutory  Provisions  and  What  Law 
Governs 

The  validity,  force,  and  effect  of  a  Judgment  must 
be  determined  by  the  laws  In  force  at  the  time  and  in 
the  jurisdiction  where  It  was  rendered. 

The  validity,  force,  and  effect  of  a  judgment  must 
be  determined  by  the  laws  in  force  at  the  time66 
and  in  the  state  or  country  where  it  was  rendered.67 

§  15.    Duly  Constituted  Court 

It  Is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  judgment  that 
It  be  the  sentence  or  adjudication  of  a  duly  constituted 
court  or  judicial  tribunal. 

It  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  judgment  that 
it  be  the  sentence  or  adjudication  of  a  duly  consti- 
tuted court  or  judicial  tribunal.68  Judicial  powers 
are  sometimes  conferred  on  tribunals  not  techni- 
cally courts,  and  decisions  by  such  tribunals,  in  the 


64.  Wis. — Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
State  ex  rel.  Lang1  v.  Civil  Court  of 
Milwaukee  County,   280  N.W.  847, 
849,  228  Wis.  411. 

Wyo. — State  v.  District  Court  of 
Eighth  Judicial  Dist.  in  and  for 
Natrona  County,  238  P.  545,  83 
Wyo.  281. 

33  C.J.  p  1064  note  58. 

Exercise  of  statutory  Jurisdiction 
only  as  statute  directs  see  Courts 
5  89. 

65.  Colo. — In     re     Special     Assess- 
ments for  Paving  Dist.  No.  3,   In 
City   of  Golden,   95   P.2d  806,   105 
Colo.  158. 

66.  Cal.— Lake  v.   Bonynge,    118  -P. 
535,  161  Cal.  120. 

83  C.J.  p  1064  note  59. 

67.  Mont — Swift  &  Co.  v.  Weston, 
289  P.  1035,  88  Mont  40. 

33  C.J.  p  1064  note  60. 
Foreign  judgments  see  Infra  55  888- 
906. 

68.  Ark, — Chapman  &  Dewey  Lum- 
ber   Co.    v.    A-ndrews,    91    S.W.2d 
1026,  192  Ark.  291. 

Mass. — Carroll    v.   Berger,   150   N.E. 

870,  255  Mass.  132. 
33  C.J.  p  1064  note  61. 
Judgment  on  motion  or  summary 

proceedings  see  infra  S  219. 
Rendition    of    judgments    generally 

see  infra  §§  100-105. 

Nullity  of  Judgment  results  from 
a  want  of  a  legally  organized  court 
or  tribunal. 
Cal. — Hunter   v.    Superior   Court    in 

and  for  Riverside  County,  97,  P.2d 

492,  36  Cal.App.2d  100. 
Tex. — San  Jacinto  Finance  Corpora- 


exercise of  powers  thus  conferred,  are  considered 
as  judgments.69 

Judgments  of  de  facto  courts.  On  principles  of 
public  policy  and  for  the  security  of  rights  it  has 
been  held  that  the  regular  judgments  of  a  de  facto 
court,  whose  existence  has  afterward  been  pro- 
nounced unconstitutional  and  void,  are  nevertheless 
valid  and  conclusive.70 

§  16.    Time  and  Place 

a.  In  general 

b.  At  chambers 

a.  In  General 

It  has  been  held  to  be  essential  to  the  validity  of  a 
judgment  that  it  be  rendered  by  a  court  sitting  at  the 
time  and  also  In  the  place  authorized  by  law. 

According  to  some  authorities,  it  is  essential  to 
the  validity  of  a  judgment  that  it  be  rendered  by  a 
court  sitting  at  the  time71  and  also  in  the  place72 
authorized  by  law,  the  tribunal  not  being  otherwise 
a  court  in  any  legal  sense,7*  and  the  proceedings 


v.  Perkins,  CivJLpp.,  94  S.W. 

2d  1213. 

Judgments  hold  not  void 
Mo. — State  ex  rel.  Aquamsi  Land  Co. 

v.    Hostetter,    79    S.W.2d   463,    336 

Mo.  391. 
Tex. — Hudson  v.  Norwood,  Civ.App., 

147    S.W.2d    826,    error   dismissed, 

judgment  correct 

69.  Me.— Longfellow  v.  Quimby,  29 
Me.  196,  48  Axn.D.  525. 

33  C.J.  p  1065  note  67. 

Allowance  of  claim  by  assignee  for 
benefit  of  creditors  as  equivalent 
to  judgment  see  Assignments  for 
Benefit  of  Creditors  S  321. 

7a    Minn. — Burt  v,  Winona  &  St  P. 

R.  Co.,  18  N.W.  285,  81  Minn.  472. 
33  C.J.  p  1070  note  2. 
De  facto  courts  generally  see  Courts 

§  144. 

71.  Ala. — Polytinsky  v.  Johnston,  99 
So.  839,  211  Ala.  99. 

Ark. — Magnolia  Petroleum  Co.  v. 
Saunders,  94  S.W.2d  703,  192  Ark. 
783. 

Ga.— Hicks  v.  Hicks,  27  S.E.2d  10, 
69  Ga.Afcp.  870. 

HI.— -Wallace  Grain  &  Supply  Co.  v. 
Gary,  24  N.E.2d  907,  308  ULApp. 
221,  reversed  on  other  grounds  28 
N.B.2d  107,  374  111.  57. 

Tex—British  General  Ens.  Co.  v. 
Ripy,  106  S.W.2d  1047,  130  Tex. 
101— Glasscock  v.  Pickens,  Civ. 
App.,  73  S.W.2d  992— Sinclair  Re- 
fining Co.  v.  McElree,  Civ.App.,  52 
S.W.2d  679 — Engelman  v.  Ander- 
son, Civ.App.,  244  S.W.  650. 

33  C.J.  p  1065  note  72. 

Validity  of  judgment  on  holiday  see 
Holidays  S  5  d. 


Validity  of  Judgment  on  Sunday  see 
the  C.J.S.  title  Sundays  §  53,  also 
60  C.J.  p  1146  note  57-p  1147 
note  70. 

72.  Ala.— Polytiosky  v.  Johnston,  99 
So.  839,  211  Ala.  99. 

OkL— City  of  Clinton  ex  rel.  Rich- 
ardson v.  Keen,  158  P.2d  104,  192 

.  Okl.  382— City  of  Clinton  ex  rel. 
Richardson  v.  Cornell,  132  P.2d 
840,  191  Okl.  600. 

Tex.— British  General  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Ripy.  106  S.W.2d  1047,  130  Tex.  101 
— Ferguson  v.  Ferguson,  Civ.App., 
98  S.W.2d  847. 

33  C.J.  p  1066  note  73. 

District 

(1)  Ordinarily,  a  judgment  cannot 
be    rendered    out    of   the    district.-^ 
Killiam  v.  Maiden  Chair  Co.,  161  S. 
E.  546,  202  N.C.  23. 

(2)  This  rule  has  been  held  inap- 
plicable  where    the    parties   consent 
thereto,  although  the  consent  should 
be    in    writing. — Killiam    v.    Maiden 
Chair  Co.,  supra. 

Signing  judgment  in  another  county 

(1)  It  has  been  held  that  a  judg- 
ment rendered  at   the   close  of  the 
evidence  at  the  place  of  trial  is  not 
rendered  invalid  because  it  was  sign- 
ed out  of  the  county  where  trial  was 
had,  under  a  statute  providing  that 
judgment  or  decree  may  be  rendered 
by.  the  judge  at  any  place  in  his  dis- 
trict— Swanson  v.  First  Nat  Bank, 
219  P.  784,  74  Colo.  135. 

(2)  Other  cases  see  33  C.J.  p  1066 
note  73*  [b]. 

73.  Ariz. — Meade  v.  Scribaer,  85  P. 
729,  10  Ariz.  33. 

33  C.J.  p  1066  note  74. 


§  16 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


being,  therefore,  coram  aon  judioe.74  In  some  cas- 
es, however,  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  a 
term  of  court  at  which  a  judgment  was  rendered 
was  held  at  a  time  other  than  that  prescribed  or 
authorized  by  law,  while  rendering  the  judgment 
erroneous  and  constituting  ground  for  its  reversal, 
does  not  render  the  judgment  void;7*  but  a  con- 
trary view  has  also  been  taken  and  a  judgment  ren- 
dered under  such  circumstances  has  been  held  to  be 
void.™  It  has  been  held  that  the  mere  fact  that 
the  court  was  held  at  a  place  other  than  that  di- 
rected by  law  will  not  of  itself  render  the  judg- 
ment void,7?  as  where  the  court  errs  with  respect 
to  the  location  of  the  county  seat78 

The  proper  time  for  the  rendition  and  entry  of 
judgment  is  discussed  infra  §§  113-116. 

b.  At  Chambers 

Judgments  should  be  rendered  In  open  court  and  not 
in  chambers. 

Judgments  should  be  rendered  in  open  court  and 
not  in  chambers,79  and  it  has  been  held  that  judg- 
ments rendered  in  chambers  are  void,80  in  the  ab- 


sence of  statutory  or  constitutional  provisions  au- 
thorizing such  action  at  chambers.81 

§  17.    Judges 

a.  In  general 

b.  Disqualified  judge 

c.  De  facto  judge 

d.  Special  judge 

a.  In  General 

Illegal  constitution  of  the  court  with  respect  to  the 
Judge  or  judges  sitting  renders  the  Judgment  absolutely 
void. 

Illegal  constitution  of  the  court  with  respect  to 
the  judge  or  judges  sitting,  as  distinguished  from' 
mere  disqualification  of  one  or  more  of  such  judg- 
es, renders  the  judgment  absolutely  void.82 

b.  Disqualified  Judge 

In  the  absence  of  a  constitutional  or  statutory  provi- 
sion forbidding  a  disqualified  Judge  from  acting,  a  Judg- 
ment rendered  by  a  disqualified  judge  is  voidable  but 
not  void. 

Where  a  judge  is  forbidden  to  act  in  a  case  when 
he  is  disqualified,83  as  by  reason  of  interest,84  re- 
lationship to  parties,85  having  acted  as  counsel,86 


74.    Gau— Hicks  v.  Hicks,   27   S.E.2d 

10,  69  Ga.App.  870. 
33  C.J.  p  1066  note  75. 

76.  S.D. — Lockard  v.  Lockard,  110 
N.W.  1C4,  21  S.D.  134. 

33  C.J.  P  1066  note  76. 

Court  held  under  color  of  law 

This  view  has  been  adopted  where 
the  court  was  held  under  color  of 
law  at  a  particular  time,  but  at  time 
other  than  that  actually  fixed  by  law. 
there  having  been  a  change  in  the 
law  which  was  unknown  or  overlook- 
ed.—Venable  v.  Curd,  2  Head,  Tenn., 
682. 
78.  Ala. — State  v.  Thurman,  88  So. 

61,  17  Ala.App.  592. 
33  C.J.  p  1066  note  78. 

77.  Minn.— In  re  Ellis,  56  N.W.  1056, 
55   Minn.  401,   43  Am.S.R.  514,   23 
L.R.A,  287. 

33  C.J.  p  1066  note  79. 

78.  111. — Robinson  v.  Moore,  25  HI. 
185. 

79.  Tex. — Bridgman    v.    Moore,    183 
S.W.2d  705,  143  Tex.  250. 

33  O.J.  p  1070  note  96. 
Term  ttxne  * 

It  has  been  held  that,  if  the  judg- 
ment Is  entered  In  term  time,  it  is 
immaterial  whether  court  perform- 
ed act  of  rendering  Judgment  in 
private  office  or  courtroom. — Doep- 
penschxnidt  v.  City  of  New  Braun- 
fels,  Tex.Civ.App.,  289  S.W.  425. 
Boom  of  courthouse 

Judgment    by    superior    court    in 
room  In  courthouse  at  county  site 


other  than  regular  courtroom  has 
been  held  not  void,  where  no  legal 
or  constitutional  right  of  defendant 
was  infringed,  and  no  substantial  in- 
jury to  him  has  been  done.— Walton 
v.  Wilkinson  Bolton  Co.,  123  S.E.  103, 
158  Ga.  13. 
Signing  judgment 

Whether  judgment  was  signed  at 
chambers  or  in  open  court  was  im- 
material, since  the  signing  of  judg- 
ment involves  no  judicial  considera- 
tion.—Baldwin  v.  Anderson,  13  P.2d 
650,  52  Idaho  243—33  C.J.  p  1070 
note  96  [e]. 

80.  Colo.— Scott  v.  Stutheit,  121  P. 
151,  21  Colo.App.  151. 

Neb.— Shold  v.   Van  Treeck,   117  N. 

W.  113,  82  Neb.  99. 
33  C.J.  p  1070  note  96—15  C.J.  p  815 

note  25. 

Under  statute  requiring  Judgments 
to  be  read  in  open  court,  a  judgment 
read  or  signed  in  chambers  without 
authorization  of  counsel  or  litigants 
is  a  nullity. — Hammond  Box  Co.  v. 
Carmello  Musso  &  Co.,  La.App.,  172 
So.  790— Green  v.  Frederick,  136  So. 
783,  17  La,App.  605—33  C.J.  p  1070 
note  96  [g]. 

81.  Wash.— Williams  v.  Briley,  242 
P.  370,  137  Wash.  262. 

33    C.J.   p    1070    note   97—15   C.J.   p 
826  note  26. 

82.  IU.-<!obb  v.  People,  84  HL  511- 
33  C.J.  p  1070  note  7. 

33.    Cal.— Glometti  v.  Etienne,  28  P. 
2d  913,  219  Cal.  687— Cadenasso  v. 

42 


Bank  of  Italy,  6  P.2d  944,  214  Cal. 

562. 
Or.— Western      Athletic      Club      v. 

Thompson,   129   P.2d   828,   169   Or. 

514. 
Tex.— Williams     v.     Sinclair-Prairie 

Oil  Co.,  Civ.App.,   135   S.W.2d   211, 

error  dismissed,  judgment  correct 

—Weil  v.  Lewis,  Civ.App.,  2  S.W. 

2d  566. 
33  C.J.  p  1071  note  9. 

84.  Mont. — Gaer  v.  Bank  of  Baker, 
107  P.2d  877,   111  Mont.  204. 

33  C.J.  p  1071  note  9. 

Judge  who  is  stockholder  of  plain- 
tiff bank  is  disqualified,  and  has  no 
jurisdiction  to  render  judgment 
which,  if  rendered,  is  void. — Cade- 
nasso v.  Bank  of  Italy,  6  P.2d  944, 
214  Cal.  562, 

85.  Tex.— Postal  Mut.  Indemnity  Co. 
v.  Ellis,   169   S.W.2d  482,  140  Tex, 
570— Weil  v.  Lewis,  Civ.App.,  2  S. 
W.2d  566 — Stephenson  v.  Kirkham, 
Civ.App.,  297  S.W.  266. 

33  C.J.  p  1071  note  9. 

Void  as  to  other  defendants 

Judgment  void  as  to  one  defendant 
because  of  judge's  relationship  was 
void  as  to  other  defendants. — Weil 
v.  Lewis,  Tex.Civ.App.,  2  S.W.2d  566. 

*.  Tex.— Williams  v.  Sinclair-Prai- 
rie Oil  Co.,  Civ.Ap.p.,  135  S.W.2d 
211,  error  dismissed,  judgment  cor- 
rect. 

33  C.J.  p  1071  note  9  [c]. 

Issistant  county  attorney 
Where  a  county  judge  hearing  sec- 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  17 


or  prejudice,87  any  judgment  by  him  in  disregard 
of  the  prohibition  is  void.  Consent  of  parties  can- 
not confer  jurisdiction  in  such  cases,88  unless  the 
statute  excepts  from  its  prohibition  cases  where 
the  parties  consent,  in  which  event  consent  of  par- 
ties removes  the  disqualification  to  act,89  as  would 
be  the  case  in  the  absence  of  any  express  prohibi- 
tion to  act.90 

Where  there  is  no  absolute  prohibition  of  his  act- 
ing, the  mere  fact  that  the  judge  is  disqualified  does 
not  render  the  judgment  void,  although  it  may  ren- 
der it  voidable  or  reversible.91  There  is  authority, 
however,  holding  that  such  judgments  are  void  even 
in  the  absence  of  any  statutory  prohibition.92 

While  it  has  been  held  that,  where  several  judges 
constitute  the  court,  and  one  of  them  is  disquali- 
fied, the  judgment  is  void,  if  such  disqualified  judge 
participated  in  the  hearing  and  determination,93 
there  is  also  authority  to  the  contrary.94  In  some 
cases  it  has  been  held  that  a  disqualified  judge  may 


sit,  pro  forma,  to  make  a  quorum  without  invali- 
dating the  judgment,  provided  he  does  not  otherwise 
participate  in  the  proceedings;96  but  there  is  also 
authority  to  the  contrary.96  It  has  been  held  that 
two  judges  of  an  appellate  court  may  render  a  valid 
judgment  where  the  third  judge  has  disqualified 
himself.97 

Entry  of  formal  judgment.  A  judge  who  is  dis- 
qualified in  a  cause  may  enter  a  formal  judgment 
directed  by  the  appellate  court,  as  in  such  case  he 
is  not  required  to  exercise  any  judgment  or  dis- 
cretion.98 

c.  De  Facto  Judge 

A  Judgment  rendered  by  a  Judge  de  facto  Is  valid. 
A  judgment  rendered  by  a  judge  de  facto  is  val- 
id.99 On  this  principle,  it  has  been  held  that  a 
judgment  rendered  by  a  properly  elected  judge  be- 
fore the  legal  commencement  of  his  term  of  office,1 
or  after  the  expiration  of  his  term,2  is  valid 


ond  liquor  prosecution  was  disquali- 
fied because  he  had  been  assistant 
county  attorney  at  time  of  first  pros- 
ecution, judgment  rendered  on  sec- 
ond prosecution  was  void. — Woodland 
v.  State,  178  S.W.2d  528,  147  Tex.Cr. 
84. 

87.  Ohio.— Wendel  v.  Hughes,  28  N. 
E.2d  686,  64  Ohio  App.  310. 

Or. — -Western  Athletic  Club  v. 
Thompson,  129  P.2d  828,  169  Or. 
514. 

88.  Vt. — Watson   v.   Payne,   111   A. 
462,  94  Vt.  299. 

83  C.J.  p  1071  note  10, 

89.  Okl.— Holloway  v.  Hall,   192  P. 
219,  79  Okl..l63. 

38  C.J.  p  1071  note  12. 
Knowledge  of  facts 

Where  parties  to  proceedings  to 
set  aside  orders  in  statutory  rehabil- 
itation proceeding  stipulated  to 
waiver  of  disqualification  of  judge 
whose  sister  owned  stock  in  delin- 
quent insurer  under  statute  relating 
to  disqualification  of  judges,  and 
waiver  was  not  specifically  limited 
to  ownership  by  sister  of  stock,  un- 
awareness  of  plaintiff  when  signing 
stipulation  that  sister  was  a  mem- 
ber of  two  stockholders'  committees, 
one  of  which  was  a  party  to  proceed- 
ings to  set  aside  orders,  did  not  ren- 
der judgment  void.— Neblett  v.  Pa- 
cific Mut  Life  Ins.  Co.  of  California, 
139  P.2d  934,  22  Cal.2d  393,  certiorari 
denied  64  S.Ct.  428,  320  U.S.  802, 
88  L.Ed.  484. 

90.  N.H.— Stearns  v.  Wright,  51  N. 
H.  600. 

33  C.J.  p  1071  note  18. 

91.  Ala.— Phillips  v.  State,  App.,  24 
So.2d  226. 

Ind. — State  ex  rel.  Krodel  v.  Gilkison, 
198  N.E.  323,  209  Ind.  213. 


Ohio.— Tari  v.  State,  159  N.B.  594,  | 
117  Ohio  St.  481,  67  A.L.R.  284. 

Okl.— Mansfield,  Sizer  &  Gardner  v. 
Smith,  16  P.2d  1066,  160  Okl.  298— 
Dancy  v.  Owens,  258  P.  879,  126 
Okl.  37— State  v.  Davenport,  256  P. 
340,  125  Okl.  1. 

S.C.— Sandel  v.  Crum,  125  S.B.  919, 
130  S.C.  317. 

33  C.J.  p  1071  note  14. 

At  common,  law 

U.S.— Crites  v.  Radtke,  D.C.N.T.,  29 
F.Supp.  970— In  re  Fox  West  Coast 
Theatres,  D.C.Cal.,  25  F.Supp.  250, 
affirmed,  C.C.A.,  88  F.2d  212,  cer- 
tiorari denied  Tally  v.  Fox  Film 
Corporation,  57  S.Ct.  944,  301  U.S. 
710,  81  LJEd.  1363,  rehearing  de- 
nied 58  S.Ct  7,  302  U.S.  772,  82 
L.Ed.  598. 

Ind.— State,  ex  rel.  Krodel  v.  Gilki- 
son, 198  N.E.  323,  209  Ind.  213. 

92.  Ky.— Hall   v.    Blackard,    182    S. 
W.2d  904,   298  Ky.   354— Common- 
wealth v.  Murphy,  174  S.W.2d  681, 
295    Ky.    466— Coquillard    Wagon 
Works    v.    Melton,    125    S.W.    291, 
137  Ky.  189. 

93.  N.T.— Oakley  v.  Aspinwall,  8  N. 
T.  547. 

33  C.J.  p  1071  note  16. 

JtLdge  necessary  to  make  quorum 

The  judgment  is  void  if  the  dis- 
qualified judge  is  necessary  to  make 
a  quorum. — Stockwell  v.  White  Lake, 
22  Mich.  341. 

94.  N.D.— State  v.  Kositzky,  166  N. 
W.  634,  «8  N.D.  616. 

"The  mere  presence  of,  and  par- 
ticipation by,  a  member  of  a  judicial 
body  disqualified  to  act  in  a  par- 
ticular case,  does  not  necessarily  in- 
validate the  proceedings  and  judg- 
ment of  that  body.  Particularly  is 
this  true  if  his  presence  is  not  nee- 

43 


essary  to  constitute  a  quorum,  or  his 
vote  does  not  determine  the  result" 
—State  v.  Kositzky,  166  N.W.  534, 
535,  38  N.D.  616,  L.R.A.1918D  237. 

95.  Utah. — Nephi  Irr.  Co.  v.  Jenkins, 
32  P.  699,  8  Utah  452. 

Wis. — Rogan  v.  Walker,  1  Wis.  597. 
Fro  tempore  member 

A  decision  of  district  court  of  ap- 
peal was  not  void  because  the  judge 
who  tried  the  case  appealed  from 
was  a  member  of  appellate  tribunal 
pro  tempore  and  sat  on  the  bench 
when  case  was  argued,  where  such 
judge  did  not  participate  in  decision 
and  specifically  disqualified  himself. 
— Bracey  v.  Gray,  Cal.App.,  162  P.2d 
314,  motion  granted  and  certiorari 
denied  Gray  v.  Bracey,  66  S.Ct.  961. 

96.  Wis.— Case  v.  Hoffman,  72  N.W. 
390,    100   Wis.    314,    44    L.R.A.   728, 
vacated  74  N.W.  220,  100  Wis.  314, 
44    L.R.A.    728,    reheard    75    N.W. 
945,  100  Wis.  314,  44  L.R.A.  728. 

97.  Tex. — Marshburn     v.      Stewart, 
Civ.App.,  295  S.W.  679. 

98.  U.S. — Clarke   v.    Chicago,    B.  '& 
Q.  R.  Co.,  CC.A.Wyo.,  62  F.2d  440, 
certiorari  denied  54  S.Ct  49,  three 
cases,  290  U.S.  629,  78  L.Ed.  54$. 

33  C.J.  p  1072  note  21. 

Entry   generally   see   infra   §    106. 

99.  Colo. — Rude    v.     Sisack,     96    P. 
976,  44  Colo.  21. 

N.T.— McLear  v.  Balmat,  223  N.T.S. 
76,  129  Misc.  805,  reversed  on  oth- 
er grounds  230  N.T.S.  259,  224  App. 
Div.  306,  modified  231  N.T.S.  581, 
224  AppJDiv.  366. 

Ohio. — Demereaux  v.  State,  172  NJ33. 
551,  35  Ohio  App.  418. 

33  C.J.  p  1072  note  23. 

1.  Va,— McCraw    v.     Williams,     83 
Gratt  510,  74  Va.  510. 

2.  Cal.— Merced  Bank  v.  Bosenthal, 


§  17 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


d.  Special  Judge 

A  Judgment  rendered  by  a  special  or  substitute  Judge 
Is  valid  where  such  a  Judge  has  been  duly  appointed 
and  Is  authorized  to  act. 

A  judgment  rendered  by  a  special  or  substitute 
judge  is  valid  where  such  a  judge  has  been  duly 
appointed  and  is  authorized  to  act8  A  judgment 
rendered  by  a- special  judge  without  proper  author- 
ity is  a  nullity,4  as  where  the  appointment  of  a  spe- 
cial judge  was  unauthorized.5 


§  18.    Formal  Proceedings 

It  Is  essential  to  the  existence  and  validity  of  a 
Judgment  that  the  decision  shall  have  been  rendered  In 
an  action  or  proceeding  before  the  court,  In  some  form 
recognized  and  sanctioned  by  law. 

It  is  essential  to  the  existence  and  validity  of  a 


judgment  that  the  decision  shall  have  been  rendered 
in  an  action  or  proceeding  before  the  court,6  in 
some  form  recognized  and  sanctioned,  by  law.?  The 
established  modes  of  procedure  must  be  followed,8 
although  mere  irregularities  in  the  proceedings  will 
not  necessarily  invalidate  the  judgment.9  Accord- 
ingly, a  judgment  in  a  court  of  record  must  be 
based  on  definite  and  regular  proceedings,  which 
the  record  must  disclose.10  Likewise,  as  a  general 
rule,  before  a  valid  judgment  may  be  rendered 
against  a  defendant,  he  must  be  accorded  an  op- 
portunity to  be  heard  and  present  his  defense,11  and 
for  this  purpose,  as  discussed  infra  §  23,  he  must 
be  given  notice  of  the  action  or  proceeding  against 
him.  It  has  been  held  that  it  is  not  essential  to  the 
validity  of  a  judgment  against  a  defendant  in  a 
civil  action  that  he  be  present  at  any  of  the  pro- 


si  P.  849,  99  Cal.  39,  reheard  33  P. 
732,  99  Cal.  39. 
33  C.J.  p  1072  note  25. 

3,  Ariz, — Payne  v.  Williams,   56   P. 
2d  186,  47  Ariz.  396. 

Ark. — Moffett    v.    Texarkana    Forest 

Park    Pavtog,    Sewer,    and   Water 

Dist.    No.    2,    26    S.W.2d    589,    181 

Ark.  474. 

N.D.— Olson   v.   Donnelly,    294   N.W. 

666,  70  N.D.  370. 

Tex. — Boone  v.   Likens-Waddill  Mo- 
tor Co.,  Civ.App.,  49  S.W.2d  979. 
Power  of  successor  judge  to  render 
judgment  in  proceeding  begun  be- 
fore predecessor  see  Judges  §  56. 
Entry  on  record  of  agreement  of 
counsel  for  appointment  of  judge  ad 
litem  has  been  held  not  essential  to 
validity  of  judgment.— TT,  S.  Fidelity 
&   Guaranty  Co.  v.   Tucker,  159  So. 
787,  118  Fla.  430. 
Failure  to  take  oath 

The  failure  of  a  special  Judge  to 
take  oath  of  office  has  been  held  not 
to  render  his  judgments  void. 
Kan, — In   re    Hewes,    62    P.    673,    62 

Kan.  288. 
W.Va.— Tower  v.  Whip,  44  S.E.  179, 

53  W.Va,  158,   63  L.R.A,  937. 
Judge  pro  tempore 

Where  Judge  pro  tempore  was  se- 
lected by  agreement  of  parties  after 
disqualification  of  district  Judge  by 
affidavit  of  prejudice,  Judgment  of 
judge  pro  tempore  was  as  valid  and 
as  binding  on  parties  as  though  it 
had  been  rendered  by  presiding 
Judge  of  district — Moruzzi  v.  Fed- 
eral Life  &  Casualty  Co.,  75  P.2d 
320,  42  N.M.  35,  115  A.L.R.  407. 
Waiver,  of  irregularity 

It  has  been  held  that,  where  de- 
fendants waived  an  Irregularity  in 
the  appointment  of  a  special  judge, 
a  judgment  rendered  by  sudh  judge 
is  not  void. — Winters  v.  Allen,  62 
S.W.2d  51,  166  Tenn.  281. 

4.  Fla. — Sapp    v.    McConnon  &  Co., 
169  So.  622,  124  Fla.  879. 


111.— Healy  v.   Mobile   &  O.   R.   Co., 

161  IlLApp.  138. 

Ind.— Herbster  V;  State,  80  I-nd.  484. 
Ky.— Ooleman   v.    Mullins,    288    S.W. 

701,  216  Ky.  761. 
Mo.— Cook  v.   Cook,    68   S.W.2d  900, 

228  Mo.App.  478. 

Tex*— Younger  Bros.  v.  Turner,  Civ. 
App.,  132  S.W.2d  632— Metropolitan 
Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Painter,  Civ.App., 
64  S.W.2d  828 — Clements  v.  Fort 
Worth  &  D.  S.  P.  Ry.  Co.,  Civ.App., 
7  S.W.2d  895. 
Signing  at  chambers 

Special  judge,  unless  duly  commis- 
sioned to  hold  and  holding  court  in 
county  or  courts  of  Judicial  district 
when  signing  judgment  at  chambers, 
was  without  authority  in  premises. — 
Bohannon  v.  Virginia  Trust  Co.,  153 
S.E.  263,  198  N.C.  702. 

5.  Ky. — Bark  v.  Springton  Coal  Co,, 
124  S.Wl2d  760,  276  Ky.  501. 

Tex— Bailey  v.  Triplett  Bros;,  Civ. 
App.,  278  S.W.  250. 

33  C.J.  p  1072  note  28. 

&  N.Y. — Booth  v.  Kingsland  Ave, 
Bldg.  Ass'n,  46  N.T.S.  457,  18  App. 
Div.  407,  408. 

33  C.J.  p  1072  note  29. 

7.  Colo. — O'Brophy  v.  Bra  Gold  Mln. 
Co.,    85   P.    679,   36  Colo.   247. 

Mo.— In  re  Buckles,  53  S.W.2d  1055, 

331  Mo.  405. 
33  C.J.  p  1072  note  30. 

8.  Me.— Ex  parte  Davis,  41  Me.  38, 
58. 

33  C.J.  p  1072  note  31* 

9.  Failure  to  give  notice  adjourn- 
ing   ease    was    a   mere   irregularity, 
not  invalidating  judgment. — Intercity 
Carnival   Co.   v.    niions,    239    N.T.S. 
128,  136  Misc.  56. 

10.  Okl. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in, 
City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P. 
418,  429,  147  dkl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1132  note  79. 

11.  U.S.— Sylvan  Beach  v.  Koch,  C 

44 


C.A.Mo.,  140  F.2d  852— In  re  Noell, 
C.C.A.MO.,  93  F.2d  5— Smith  v. 
Stark  Trucking,  D.C.Ohio.  53  F. 
Supp.  826 — Fisher  v.  Jordan,  D.C. 
Tex.,  32  F.Supp.  608,  reversed  on 
other  grounds,  C.C.A.,  116  F.2d  198, 
certiorari  denied  Jordan  v.  Fisher, 
61  S.Ct.  734,  312  U.S.  697,  85  U 
Ed.  1132. 

Cal.— Gray  v.  Hall,   265  P.  246,   203 

Cal.  306. 
D.C. — IT.  S.  ex  reL  Ordmann  v.  Cum- 

mings,    85    F.2d    273.    66    App. B.C. 

107. 
Ga.— Elliott  v.  Adams,  160  S.E.  336, 

173  Ga.  312— Walton  v.  Wilkinson 

Bolton   Co.,   123   S.E.   103,   158   Ga, 

13. 
111.— Alward  v.  Borah,  44  N.E.2d  865, 

381  111.  134— Hauser  v.  Power,  183 

N.E.  580,  351  111.  36— In  re  Shanks' 

Estate,  282  IlLApp.  1. 
Ky.— Jasper  v.  Tartar.  7  S.W.2d  236, 

224  Ky.  834. 
Mo.— Ex  parte  Irwin,  6  S.W.2d  597, 

320  Mo.  20— State  ex  reL  National 

Lead  Co.  v.  Smith,  App.,  134  S.W. 

2d  1061. 
N.J. — Redzlna  v.  Provident  Inst.  for 

Savings  in  Jersey  City,  125  A.  133, 

96  N.J.EQ.  346. 
N.T. — Rochester  Sav.  Bank  v.   Mon- 
roe   County,    8    N.Y.S.2d    107,    169' 

Misc.  526. 
N.D.— Baird    V.    Ellison,     293    N.W. 

794,  70  N.D.  261. 
Or.— Kerns  v.  Couch,  17  P.2d  323,  141 

Or.  147. 
Pa.— In    re    Galli's  Estate,    17   A.2d 

899,  340  Pa.  561. 
Tex. — Bozeman  v.  Arlington  Heights 

Sanitarium,    Civ.App.,    134    S.W.2d 

350,    error    refused — Moorhe-ad    v. 

Transportation    Bank   of   Chicago, 

111.,   Civ.App.,   62  S.W.2d   184. 
Va.— Moore  v.   Smith,  15   S.E.2d  48, 

177  Va.  621. 
Wash.— Morley  v.  Morley,  230  P.  645, 

131  Wash.  540. 
33  CJ.  p  1080  note  96. 


49    C.J.S. 


.JUDGMENTS 


§  19 


ceedings  following  a  proper  summons  to  bring  him 
before  the  court.12 

§  19.    Jurisdiction 

a.  In  general 

b.  Jurisdiction  of  person 

c.  Jurisdiction  of  subject  matter  or  cause 

of  action 

d.  Jurisdiction    of   question   determined 

and  relief  granted 


a.  In  General 

A  judgment  rendered  by  a  court  having  no  Jurisdic- 
tion Is  a  mere  nullity. 

A  judgment  rendered  by  a  court  having  no  ju- 
risdiction is  a  mere  nullity,  and  will  be  so  held  and 
treated  whenever  and  for  whatever  purpose  it  is 
sought  to  be  used  or  relied  on  as  a  valid  judg- 
ment.1^  Where  a  court  is  without  jurisdiction,  it 
is  generally  irregular  to  make  any  order  in  the 


12.  Ariz. — Potter  v.  Home  Owners' 
Loan  Corporation,  72  P.2d  429,  50 
Ariz.  285. 

Necessity  of  presence  of  parties  at 
trial  generally  see  the  C.J.S.  title 
Trial  §  40,  also  64  C.J.  p  69  note 
90-p  70  note  3. 

13.  U.S.— Green  v.   City  of  Stuart, 
C.C.A.Fla.,  101  F.2d  309,  certioraii 
denied  59   S.Ct   827,   307  U.S.   626, 
83   L.Ed.   1510— Albion-Idaho  Land 
Co.    v.    Naf    Irr.    Co.,    C.OA.Utah, 
97  F.2d  439 — In  re  Lake  Champlain 
Pulp    &    Paper    Corporation,    B.C. 
N.Y.,  20  F.2d  425. 

Cal.— In  re  Gardiner's  Estate,  114 
P.2d  643,  45  Cal.App.2d  559. 

Colo.— Atchison,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Board  of  Com'rs  of  Fremont 
County,  87  P.2d  761,  95  Colo.  435. 

D.C. — U.  S.  ex  rel.  Tungsten  Reef 
Mines  Co.  v.  Ickes,  84  F.2d  257,  66 
App.D.C.  3. 

Fla. — Mai  one  v.  Meres,  109  So.  677, 
91  Fla.  709. 

Ga.— City  of  Albany  v.  Parks,  5  S. 
E.2d  680,  61  GeuApp.  55. 

Idaho. — East  Side  Lumber  Co.  T. 
Malmgren,  277  P.  554,  47  Idaho 
560 — Williams  v,  Sherman,  212  P. 
971,  36  Idaho  494. 

111.— Atkins  v.  Atkins,  65  N.E.2d  801, 
393  111.  202— Martin  v.  Schillo,  60 
N.E.2d  392,  389  111.  607,  certiorari 
denied  65  S.Ct  •  1572,  325  U.S.  880, 
89  L.Ed.  1996— Sharp  v.  Sharp,  164 
N.B.  685,  333  111.  267— People  v. 
Brewer,  160  N.B.  76,  328  111.  472— 
Albers  v.  Bramberg,  32  N.E.2d  362, 
308  Ill.App.  463— Jardine  v.  Jar- 
dine,  9  N.E.2d  645,  291  Ill.App.  152 
— Webster  Grocer  Co.  v.  Gammel,  1 
N.E.2d  890,  285  IlLApp.  277— Eddy 
v.  Dodson,  242  Ill.App.  508 — Gary  v. 
Senseman,  215  Ill.App.  232. 

3towa. — Stier  v.  Iowa   State  Travel- 
in?   Men's    Asa'n,    201    N.W.    328, 
199   Iowa  118,  59  A.L.R.   1384. 
:Ky.— Thacker  v.  Phillips'  Adm'r,  281 
S.W.  831,  213  Ky.  687. 

;La. — Whitney  Central  Trust  &  Sav- 
ings Bank  v.  Norton,  102  So.  306, 
157  La,  199— Smith  v.  Shehee, 
App.,  143  So.  339,  amended  144  So. 
750. 

iMe.— In  re  Williams'  Estate,  41  A. 

2d    825,    141    Me.    219— Appeal    of 

Kelley,   1  A.2d  183,   136  Me.  7. 

:*ld. — Fooks*  Ex*rs  v.   Ghingher,   192 

A.  782,  172  Md.  612,  certiorari  de- 


nied Phillips  v.  Ghingher,  58  S.Ct. 
47,  302  U.S.  726,  82  L.Ed.  561. 

Mass.— Holt  v.  Holt,  153  N.B.  397, 
257  Mass.  114. 

Mich.— Ward  v.  Hunter  Machinery 
Co.,  248  N.W.  864,  263  Mich.  445. 

Mo.— In  re  Buckles,  53  S.W.2d  1055, 
331  Mo.  405— State  ex  rel.  Hogan 
v.  Meyers,  App.,  26  S.W.2d  816. 

Mont — Oregon  Mortg.  Co.  v.  Kun- 
neke,  245  P.  539,  76  Mont.  117. 

N.J.— Giresi  v.  Giresi,  44  A.2d  345 
— Kaufman  v.  Smathers,  166  A. 
453,  111  N.J.Law  52— Corpus  Juris 
cited  in,  Keller  v.  American  Cya-n- 
amid  Co.,  28  A.2d  41,  46,  132  N.J. 
Bq.  210.  . 

N.T. — Oberlander  v.  Oberlander,  89 
N.T.S.2d  139,  179  Misc.  459 — Cor- 
pus Juris  quoted  in  Van  Buren  v. 
Harrison,  299  N.Y.S.  485,  486,  164 
Misc.  774 — Clarke  v.  Carlisle  Foun- 
dry Co.,  270  N.T.S.  351,  150  Misc. 
710. 

N.C.— Ward  v.  Agrillo,  139  S.B.  451, 
194  N.C.  321— Clark  v.  Carolina 
Homes,  128  S.E.  20,  189  N.C.  703. 

Ohio. — Sampliner  v.  Bialosky,  25 
Ohio  N.P.,N.S.,  161. 

Okl.— O.  C.  Whitaker,  Inc.,  v.  Dil- 
lingham,  152  P.2d  371,  194  Okl.  421 
— Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Fltzsim- 
mons  v.  Oklahoma  City,  135  P.2d 
340,  342,  192  Okl.  248— Hinkle  v. 
Jones,  66  P.2d  1073,  180  Okl.  17— 
St  Louis-San  Francisco  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Bayne,  40  P.2d  1104,  170  Okl. 
542 — Henson  v.  Oklahoma  State 
Bank,  23  P.2d  709,  165  Okl.  1— 
Tulsa  Terminal,  Storage  &  Trans- 
fer Co.  v,  Thomas,  18  P.2d  891, 
162  OkL  5. 

Pa. — In  re  Patterson's  Estate,  19  A. 
2d  165,  341  Pa.  177— Mamlin  v. 
Tener,  23  A.2d  90,  146  BauSuper. 
593-t-Mintz  v.  Mlntz,  83  Pa.Super. 
85. 

S.D. — Hurley  v.  Coursey,  265  N.W.  4, 
64  S.D.  131— In  re  Schafer's  Estate, 
209  N.W.  355,  50  S.D.  232,  adhered 
to  In  re  Schafer's  Estate,  216  N. 
W.  948,  52  S.D.  182. 

Tenn. — Johnson  v.  White,  106  S.W, 
2d  222,  171  Tenn.  536— Ward  v. 
Lovell,  113  S*W.2d  759,  21  Tenn. 
App.  560— Western  Automobile 
Casualty  Co.  v.  Burnell,  71  S.W.2d 
474,  17  Tenn.App.  687. 

Tex.— Conn  v.  Campbell,  24  S.W.2d 
813,  119  Tex.  82— Leslie  v.  Griffin, 

45 


Com. App.,  25  S.W.2d  820 — Renshaw 
v.  Wise  County,  Civ.App.,  142  S.W. 
2d  578 — Green  v.  Duncan,  Civ. App., 
134  S.W.2d  744 — Galley  v.  Hedrick, 
Civ.App.,  127  S.W.2d  978— Askew 
V.  Roundtree,  Civ.App.,  120  S.W. 
2d  117,  error  dismissed — Fowzer 
v.  Huey  &  Philp  Hardware  Co., 
Civ.App.f  99  S.W.2d  1100,  error 
dismissed — Westerly  Supply  Cor- 
poration v.  State,  Civ. App.,  89  S.W. 
2d  244— Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Wil- 
kinson v.  Owens,  Civ.App.,  72  S.W. 
2d  330,  335— King  v.  King,  Civ. 
App.t  291  S.W.  645— Glenn  v.  Dal- 
las County  Bois  D'Arc  Island 
Levee  Dist,  Civ.App.,  282  S.W.  339, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  Dallas 
County  Bois  D'Arc  Island  Levee 
Dist  v.  Glenn,  Com.App.,  288  S.W. 
165. 

Va. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Bray  v. 
Landergren,  172  S.B.  252,  257,  161 
Va.  699. 
Vt— Roddy    v.    Fitzgerald's    Estate, 

35  A,2d  668,  113  Vt.  472. 
Wash.— Parr  v.  City  of  Seattle,  84  P. 

2d  375,  197  Wash.  53. 
W.Va.—Perkins    v.    Hall,    17    S.E.2d 
795,   123  W.Va.   707— Corpus  Jurto 
cited  i»  Pettry  v.  Shi-nn,  196  S.E. 
385,  386,  120  W.Va.  20. 
33  C.J.  p  1073  note  33. 
Jurisdiction  generally  see  Courts  55 
15-119. 

"A  judgment  rendered  without  Ju- 
risdiction is  a  nullity  and  the  party 
against  whom  it  is  entered  may 
Ignore  it  and  proceed  as  though  no 
attempt  had  ever  been  made  to  ren- 
der it" — Moeur  v.  Ashfork  Livestock 
Co.,  61  P.2d  395,  897,  48  Ariz.  298. 

Other  statements  of  rule 

(1)  Where   a   court   acts   without 
authority,   its   judgments  are  nulli- 
ties. 

D.C. — TJ.  S.  ex  rel.  Ordmann  v.  Cum- 

mings,    85    F.2d    273,    66    App.D.C. 

107. 
Fla. — Malone  v.  Meres,   109   So.   677* 

91  Fla.  709. 
N.M.— State  v.   Patten,    69   P.2d   931, 

41  N.M.  395. 

(2)  Judgment   is   void   where   ju- 
risdictional    fact    on    which    court's 
authority  to  act  depends  is  absent — 
Turk  v.   Turk,   18   S.W.2d   1003.   230 
Ky.  191. 

(8)  "Without  jurisdiction  there  ia 
no  validity  or  vitality  to  the  'Judg- 


§  19 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


cause  except  to  dismiss  the  suit**  The  validity  of 
a  judgment  depends  on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
before  rendition,  not  on  what  may  occur  subse- 
quently.16 It  has  been  stated,  however,  that  it 
cannot  be  broadly  asserted  that  a  judgment  is  al- 
ways a  nullity  if  jurisdiction  of  some  sort  or  other 
is  wanting.1** 

Loss  of  jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction  which  has  once 
attached  may  be  lost,  and  thereby  the  court  may 
be  deprived  of  the  authority  to  make  any  further 
order  or  judgment,17  as  where  the  case  has  been 
taken  up  on  appeal  or  error,1*  or  duly  removed 
from  a  state  court  to  a  federal  court.19  So  juris- 


diction may  be  lost  and  the  authority  of  the  court 
terminated  by  the  expiration  of  the  term  without 
judgment  rendered  and  without  a  proper  continu- 
ance.20 

Error  in  exercise  of  jurisdiction.  Want  of  ju- 
risdiction must  be  distinguished  from  error  in  the 
exercise  of  jurisdiction.21  Where  jurisdiction  has 
once  attached,  mere  errors  or  irregularities  in  the 
proceedings,  however  grave,  although  they  may  ren- 
der the  judgment  erroneous  and  subject  to  be  set 
aside  in  a  proper  proceeding  for  that  purpose,  will 
not  render  the  judgment  void,22  and,  as  discussed 
infra  §  449,  until  set  aside  it  is  valid  and  binding 


."— Carroll  v.  Berber,   150  N.B. 
870,  872.  255  Mass.  132. 

(4)  A    judgment    rendered    by    a 
court  without  Jurisdiction  is  not  a 
final  and  binding  judgment. — In  re 
Waters'   Estate,    Mo.App.,    153    S.W. 
2d  774. 

(5)  A   court   cannot   render   valid 
judgment  In  case  of  which  it  has  no 
potential  jurisdiction.—- Kirk  v.  Head, 
152  S.W.2d  726,  187  Tex.  44. 

(6)  Where     court     is     inherently 
without  power  to  hear   and   deter- 
mine,  any   judgment  rendered  is   a 
mere      nullity. — United      Production 
Corporation  v.   Hughes,   152    S.W.2d 
327,  137  Tex.  21. 

14.  U.S.— New  Orleans  Mail  Co.  v. 
Flanders,  La.,  12  Wall.  ISO,  20  L. 
Ed.  249. 

38  C.J.  p  1074  note  37. 

15.  Tex.— Hicks    v.    Sias,    Civ.App., 
102  S.W.2d  460,  error  refused. 

16.  U.S.— -Carter  v.  U.  S.,  C.C.A.Ala., 
135  F.2d  858. 

Necessity  of  record 

A  judgment  is  not  void  in  the 
legal  sense  for  want  of  jurisdiction 
unless  its  invalidity  and  want  of 
Jurisdiction  appear  on  the  record, 
but  is  merely  voidable.— ^Tupe  v. 
Home  Owners  Loan  Corp.,  Okl.,  167 
P,2d  46— Edwards  v.  Smith,  142  P. 
302,  42  Okl.  544. 
Jurisdictional  defects  as  grounds  for 

collateral  attack  on  judgments  see 

infra  §§  421-427. 

17.  HI.— People    ex    rel.    Waite    v, 
Bristbw,    62    N.E.2d    545,    391    ffl. 
101— Watkins  v.  Dunbar,  149  N.B 
14,  318  I1L  174. 

Ky.— Combs  v.  Beaton,  251  S.W.  638 

199  Ky.  477. 
Wis.— State    ex    reL    Lang   v.    Civil 

Court   of   Milwaukee   County.   280 

N.W.  347,  228  Wis.  411. 
33  C.J.  p  1074  note  38. 
Ancillary  matter 

Where    jurisdiction    to    render 
judgment  is   ended,   no   jurisdiction 
remains  as  to  matter  purely  ancil 
lary  to  that  object, — Cutrone  v.  Cut 
rone,  29  N.T.S.2d  405,  176  Miac,  988 


affirmed   80    N.T.S.2d   813,    262   App. 
Div.  992. 

18.  Mass.— Boynton     v.     Foster,     7 
Mete.  415. 

19.  Minn. — Roberts   v.   Chicago,   St. 
P.   M.  &  O.   R.   Co.,   51  N.W.  478, 
48  Minn.  521. 

20.  Wis.— Witt  v.   Henze,    16   N.W. 
609,  58  Wis.  244. 

Rendition  of  judgment  during  term 
see  supra  8  16  b. 

21.  Mich.— Corpus   Juris    quoted  i» 
Jackson  City  Bank  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Frederick,  260  N.W.  908,   910,  271 
Mich.  538.  ' 

Wash. — In  re  Waters  of  Doan  Creek, 
299  P.  383.  162  Wash.  695. 

22.  Ala. — Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
James  v.   State,  181   So.  709,  712, 
28  Ala. App.  225. 

Ark.— Corpus  Juris  cited  in,  Ex  parte 
O'Neal,  87  S.W.2d  401,  403,  191 
Ark.  696. 

Fla.— Childs  v.  Boots,  152  So.  212, 
112  Fla.  277— Malone  v.  Meres,  109 
So.  677,  91  Fla.  709. 

Ga. — Lester  v.  Southern  Security  Co., 
147  S.B.  529,  168  Ga,  307— Corpus 
Juris  cited  in  Georgia  Power  Co.  v. 
Friar,  171  S.B.  210,  214,  47  Ga.App. 
675,  affirmed  175  S.B.  807,  179  Ga. 
470. 

Idaho.— Baldwin  v.  Anderson,  299  P. 
341,  50  Idaho  606,  certiorari  grant- 
ed American  Surety  Co.  of  New 
York  v.  Baldwin,  52  S.Ct.  499,  286 
U.S.  536,  76  L.Ed.  1275,  and  certio- 
rari dismissed  American  Surety 
Co.  v.  Baldwin,  53  S.Ct.  98,  287  U. 
S.  166,  77  L.Ed.  231,  86  A.L.R. 

HI. — Heitman  Trust  Co.  v.  Parlee,  40 
N.E.2d  732,  314  IlLApp.  83— Corpus 
Juris  cited  in.  Hampton  v.  Grissom, 
4  N.B.2d  895,  287  IlLApp.  294— 
Seither  &  Cherry  Co.  v.  Board  of 
Education  of  District  No.  15,  Town 
of  La  Harpe,  283  IlLApp.  892— 
Knapik  v.  Stefek,  274  IlLApp.  19 

Ind. — Freimann  v.  Gallmeier,  App., 
63  N.E.2d  150. 

Ky.— Stewart  v.  Sampson,  148  S.W.2d 
278,  285  Ky.  447— Henderson  v. 
Commonwealth,  251  S.W.  988,  199 
Ky.  795. 

46 


Mich.— Corpus  Juris  quoted  In  Jack- 
son City  Bank  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Frederick,  260  N.W.  908,  910,  271 
Mich.  538. 

N.C.— Fowler  v.  Fowler,  130  S.B.  815, 
190  N.C.  536. 

Okl. — Protest  of  St.  Louis-San  Fran- 
cisco Ky.  Co.,  26  P.2d  212,  166  Okl. 
50. 

Or. — Lytle  v.  Payette-Oregon  Slope 
Irr.  Dist,  152  P.2d  934,  156  A.L.R. 
894. 

Tex.— Corpus  Juris  cited  in,  Texas 
Employers*  Ins.  Ass'n  v.  Bzell, 
Com.App.,  14  S.W.2d  1018,  1019, 
rehearing  denied  16  S.W.2d  528 
— Waples  Platter  Co.  v.  Miller, 
Civ.App.,  139  S.W.2d  833— Ameri- 
can Law  Book  Co.  v.  Dykes,  Civ. 
App.,  278  S.W.  247. 

Wash. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  In  re 
Waters  of  Doan  Creek  in  Walla 
Walla  County,  299  P.  883,  162 
Wash.  695. 

Wyo. — State    v.    District    Court    of 
Eighth   Judicial   Dist.   within   and 
for  Natrona  County,  260  P.  174,  37 
Wyo.  169. 
33  C.J.  P  1079  note  82—34  C.J.  p  508 

note  7. 

Operation  and  effect  of  void  and 
voidable  judgments  see  infra  55 
449-452. 

Other  statements  of  rule 

(1)  A  Judgment  is  <not  void,  even 
though  it  may  be  erroneous  if  court 
had  jurisdiction  of  person  of  defend- 
ant and  of  the  subject  matter  of  the 
suit  and  had  power  to  render  par- 
ticular Judgment  which  it   entered, 
and  such  a  Judgment  is  valid  until 
reversed. — People   ex  rel.   Merrill  v. 
Hazard,  196  N.E.   827,  361  HI.   60. 

(2)  Where  court  of  general  Juris- 
diction  has   Jurisdiction    of   subject 
matter  and  parties,  «no  Judgment  it 
may  render  within  the  issues  is  void, 
however  erroneous  it  may  be.— City 
of  Huntington  v.  Northern  Indiana 
Power  Co.,  5  N.B.2d  889,  211  Ind.  502, 
dissenting  opinion  6  N.B.2d  335,  211 
Ind.  502. 

(3)  Where  a  court  has  Jurisdiction 
over    the    person    and    the    subject 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


19 


for  all  purposes.  Error  in  the  determination  of 
questions  of  law  or  fact  on  which  the  court's  ju- 
risdiction in  the  particular  case  depends,  the  court 
having  general  jurisdiction  of  the  cause  and  the 
person,  is  error  in  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction.23 


1>.  Jurisdiction  of  Person 

A  judgment   in   personam   Is  void  unless  the  court 
has  jurisdiction  of  the  persons  Involved. 

A  judgment  in  personam  is  void  unless  the  court 
has  jurisdiction  of  the  persons  involved.24     The 


matter,  no  error  in  the  exercise  of 
such  jurisdiction  can  make  the  judg- 
ment void  even  if  there  is  a  funda- 
mental error  of  law  appearing  on  the 
face  of  the  record  and  such  judgment 
is  valid  until  avoided.— Mahaffa  v. 
Mahaffa,  298  N.W.  916,  230  Iowa  679. 

(4)  A  judgment  is  never  void  for 
error,  provided  the  court  rendering 
it  had  jurisdiction  over  the  person 
of  the  defendant  and  the  subject 
matter  of  the  action. — Sheridan  v* 
Sheridan,  4  N.W.2d  785,  218  Minn.  24. 
Property  rights 

Where  a  court  in  the  exercise  of 
its  jurisdiction  enters  a  decree  af- 
fecting property  rights  contrary  to 
statute,  the  court  is  guilty  of  error 
of  judgment,  but  such  error  does  not 
render  the  decree  void,  nor  does  the 
fact  that  the  error  may  appear  on 
the  face  of  the  decree  itself  indi- 
cate its  nullity. — In  re  Gardiner's 
Estate,  114  P.2d  648,  45  Cal.App.2d 
659. 

23.  Ala.— Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
James  v.   State,   181   So.   709,  712, 
28  Ala.App.  225. 

Ariz. — Wall  v.  Superior  Court  of 
Tavapai  County,  89  P.2d  624,  58 
Ariz.  344. 

Mich. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Jack- 
son City  Bank  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Frederick,  260  N.W.  908,  910,  271 
Mich.  588. 

Tex. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Fergu- 
son v.  Ferguson,  Civ.App.,  98  S.W. 
2d  847,  850. 

33  C.J.  p  1079  note  88. 

24.  U.S.— Buss    v.    Prudential    Ins. 
Co.    of    America,    COAJowa,    126 
F.2d    960— Mulcahy    v.    Whitehill, 
D.C.Mass.,    48    F.Supp.   917— In   re 
American  Fidelity  Corporation,  D. 
C.Cal.,    28   F.Supp.   462— Baskin  v. 
Montedonico,  D.CTenn.,  26  F.Supp. 
894,  affirmed,  C.C.A.,  115  F.2d  837 
— U.  S.  v.  U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guar- 
anty Co.,  D.C.Okl.,  24  F.Supp.  961, 
modified  on  other  grounds,  C.C.A., 
106    F.2d    804,    reversed   on   other 
grounds  60  S.Ct  653,  309  U.S.  506, 
84  L.Bd.  894. 

Ala.-— Farrell  v.  Farrell,  10  So.2d  153, 
243  Ala.  389— Ex  parte  Kelly,  128 
So.  443,  221  Ala.  339— Corpus  JHxi» 
cited  in  Ex  parte  Whitehead,  199 
So.  876,  878,  29  Ala,App.  583,  cer- 
tiorari  denied  199  So.  879,  240 
Ala.  447. 

Alaska.— In  re  Young's  Estate,  9 
Alaska  158. 

Ariz.— Varnes  v.  White,  12  P.2d  870, 
40  Ariz.  427. 

Cal. — Hunter   v.    Superior   Court   in 


and  for  Riverside  County,  97  P.2d 
492,  36  Cal.App.2d  100— Northing- 
ton  v.  Industrial  Accident  Commis- 
sion, 72  P.2d  909,  23  Cal.App.2d 
255— Ex  parte  Cohen,  290  P.  512, 
107  CaLApp.  288— Jellen  v.  O'Brien, 
264  P.  1115,  89  CaLApp.  505. 

Conn. — O'Leary  v.  Waterbury  Title 
Co.,  166  A.  673,  117  Conn.  39. 

D.C. — U.  S.  ex  rel.  Ordmann  v.  Cum- 
mings,  85  F.2d  273,  66  App.D.C. 
.107. 

Fia,— United  Brotherhood  of  Car- 
penters and  Joiners  of  America  v. 
Graves  Inv.  Co.,  15  So.2d  196,  153 
Fla.  529 — Skipper  v.  Schumacker, 

169  So.  58,  124  Fla.  384,  appeal  dis- 
missed   and    certiorarl    denied    57 
S.Ct    39,    299    U.S.    507,    81    L.Ed. 
376— Coslick  v.  Finney,  140  So.  216, 
104  Fla.  394. 

Ga.— McKnight  v.  Wilson,  122  S.E. 
702,  158  Ga.  153— W.  T.  Rawleigh 
Co.  v.  Greenway,  26  S.K2d  458,  69 
Ga.App.  590 — Anderson  v.  Turner, 
133  S.E.  306,  35  Ga.App.  428. 

HI.— People  ex  reL  Fisher  v.  Balti- 
more &  O.  R.  Co.,  61  N.E.2d  382, 
390  111.  389— Heitman  Trust  Co.  v. 
Parlee,  40  N.E.2d  732,  314  Ill.App. 
83 — Sunbeam  Heating  Co.  v.  Cham- 
bers, 38  N.E.2d  544,  312  Ill.App. 
382— Davis  v.  Oliver,  25  N.E.2d 
905,  304  IlLApp.  71— In  re  Shanks' 
Estate,  282  Ill.App.  1. 

Ind. — Calumet  Teaming  &  Trucking 
Co.  v.  Young,  33  N.B.2d  109,  218 
Ind.  468,  rehearing  denied  33  N.E. 
2d  583,  218  Ind.  468. 

Ky.— Hill  v.  Walker,  180  S.W.2d  93, 
297  Ky.  257,  154  A.L.R.  814— Gover 
v.  Wheeler,  178  S.W.2d  404,  296 
Ky.  734 — Max  Ams,  Inc.,  v.  Barker, 

170  S.W.2d  45,  293  Ky.  698— Wag- 
ner v.   Peoples   Building  &  Loan 
Ass'n,  167  S.W.2d  825,  292  Ky.  691 
— Lowther  v.  Moss,  39  S.W.2d  501, 
239  Ky,  290— Lorton  v.  Ashbrook, 
295  S.W.  1027,  220  Ky.   830. 

Mass. — Carroll  v.  Berger,  150  N.E. 
870,  255  Mass.  132. 

Mo. — State  ex  reL  National  Lead  Co. 
v.  Smith,  App.,  134  S.W.2d  1061. 

N.Y. — Carbone  v.  Carbone,  2  N.T.S. 
2d  869,  166  Misc.  924— Corpus  Jo- 
ris  quoted,  in  Universal  Credit  Co. 
v.  Blfoxderman,  288  N.T.S.  79,  80, 
158  Misc.  917— In  re  Killough's  Es- 
tate, 265  N.Y.S.  301,  148  Misc.  73— 
Shaul  v.  Fidelity  &  Deposit  Co.  of 
Maryland,  227  N.Y.S.  163,  131  Misc. 
401,  affirmed  230  N.Y.S.  910,  224 
App.Div.  773. 

N.C.— Clark  v.  Carolina  Homes,  128 
S.B.  20,  189  NXX  703. 

Ohio. — Terry  v.  Claypool,   65  N.E.2d 

47 


883,  77  Ohio  App.  77— Ruckert  v. 
Matil  Realty,  App.,  40  N.E.2d  688 
— Sampliner  v.  Bialosky,  25  Ohio 
N.P..N.S.,  161. 

Okl. — Fitzsimmons  v.  Oklahoma  City, 
135  -P.2d  340,  192  Okl.  248— Okla- 
homa City  v.  Robinson,  65  P.2d 
531,  179  Okl.  309— Moroney  v.  State 
ex  reL  Southern  Surety  Co.,  31  P. 
2d  926,  168  Okl.  69— Henson  v.  Ok- 
lahoma State  Bank,  23  P.2d  709, 
165  Okl.  i — State  v.  Armstrong,  13 
P.2d  198,  158  Okl.  290. 

Tex. — Kuteman  v.  Ratliff,  Civ.App., 
154  S.W.2d  684 — Olton  State  Bank 
v.  Howell,  Civ.App.,  105  S.W.2d 
287 — San  Jacinto  Finance  Corpo- 
ration v.  Perkins,  Civ.App.,  94  S. 
W.2d  1213— Simms  Oil  Co.  v. 
Butcher,  Civ.App.,  55  S.W.2d  192, 
error  dismissed — Reed  v.  State, 
Cr.,  187  S.W.2d  660. 

Va. — Robertson  v.  Commonwealth, 
25  S.E.2d  352,  181  Va.  520,  146 
A.L.R.  966. 

33  C.J.  p  1074  note  43. 

Other  statements  of  ruU 

(1)  Jurisdiction   of   the  person   is 
essential  to  the  rendition  of  a  valid 
judgment. 

Cal.— Jellen  v.  O'Brien,  264  P.  1115, 
89  CaLApp.  505. 

Fla. — Arcadia  Citrus  Growers  Ass'n 
v.  Hollingsworth,  185  So.  431,  135 
Fla.  322. 

Mich. — Ward  v.  Hunter  Machinery 
Co.,  248  N.W.  864,  263  Mich.  445. 

N.M. — State  ex  rel.  State  Tax  Com- 
mission v.  Chavez,  101  P.2d  889, 
44  N.M.  260— In  re  Field's  Es- 
tate, 60  P.2d  945,  40  N.M.  423. 

Tex. — -Commander  v.  Bryon,  Civ.App., 
123  S.W.2d  1008. 

Vt.— In  re  Hanrahan's  Will,  194  A. 
471,  109  Vt  108. 

(2)  Jurisdiction  of  the  party,  ob- 
tained by  the  court  in  some  way  al- 
lowed by  law,  is  essential  to  enable 
the  court  to  give  a  valid  judgment 
against  him. — Powell  v.   Turpin,    29 
S.E.2d  26,  224  N.C.  67— City  of  Mon- 
roe v.  Niven,  20   S.E.2d   311,   221  N. 
C.    362— Casey  v.   Barker,   14   S.E.2d 
429,  219  N.C.  465. 

(3)  It  is  essential  to  the  efficacy 
of  a  judgment  that  the  court  have 
jurisdiction  over  the  person. — Crab- 
tree  v.  ^Btna  Life  Ins.  Co.,  Ill  S.W. 
2d  103,  341  Mo.  1173. 

A  judgment  or  portion  thereoi 
which  attempts  to  settle  rights  of 
parties,  over  whom  the  court  has  no 
jurisdiction,  is  void  as  to  such  par- 
ties.— Barrett  v.  Board  of  Com'rs  of 
Tulsa  County,  90  P.2d  442,  185  Okl. 
111. 


§  19 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


court  must  have  jurisdiction  of  plaintiff  or  the 
person  in  whose  favor  it  is  rendered,26  and  also  of 
defendant  or  the  person  against  whom  it  is  ren- 
dered.26 Accordingly  a  judgment  for  or  against 
one  who  for  any  reason  is  no  longer  before  the 
court  is  wholly  void.27  Where  a  statute  requires 
that  certain  actions  shall  be  brought  only  in  the 
district  or  county  where  defendant  resides,  it  has 
been  held  that  no  jurisdiction  of  the  person  of  de- 
fendant can  be  obtained  in  any  district  or  county 
other  than  the  one  in  which  he  resides,  if  defendant 
stands  on  his  privilege,  and  a  judgment  against  Mm 
in  such  other  district  or  county  is  void  for  want  of 
jurisdiction.2* 

Consent.  Where  the  court  has  jurisdiction  of  the 
subject  matter  or  cause  of  action,  jurisdiction  of  the 
parties  may  be  conferred  by  their  consent,  and  in 
such  cases  the  judgment  is  valid,2&  as  where  de- 


fendant waives  an  exemption  from  suit  and  consents 
to  be  sued,80  or  waives  the  privilege  of  being  sued 
only  in  a  particular  place,  county,  or  district,  and 
consents  to  be  sued  in  some  other  place,  county,  or 
district,31  except  where  the  rights  of  other  persons 
would  be  prejudiced32  or  some  rule  of  public  pol- 
icy requires  that  defendant  shall  be  sued  only  in  a 
designated  place.88 

c.  Jurisdiction  of  Subject  Matter  or  Cause  of 
Action 

A  court  cannot  render  a  valid  Judgment  unless  ft 
has  Jurisdiction  over  the  subject  matter  of  the  litiga- 
tion or  the  cause  of  action. 

Even  with  fuir  jurisdiction  over  the  parties,  no 
court  can  render  a  valid  judgment  unless  it  also  has 
jurisdiction  over  the  subject  matter  of  the  litiga- 
tion or  the  cause  of  action.84  A  judgment  is  whol- 
ly void  in  cases  where  the  subject  matter  is  with-. 


25.    N.Y.— In  re  Clark's  Witt,  8  N.Y. 

S.2d    364,    166    Misc.    909— Corpus 

Juris   quoted  in   Universal   Credit 

Co.  v.   Binderman,   288   N.Y.a   79, 

80,  15  Misc.  917. 
38  C.J.  p  1075  note  44. 
28.    Iowa,— Allen  v.  Allen.  298  N.W. 

869.  230  Iowa  504,  136  A.L.R.  617. 
Miss.— Bank  of  Richton  v.  Jones, 

121    So.    823,   153   Miss.    796. 
Mo.— Noll    v.    Alexander,    App.,    282 

S.W.  739. 
Neb.— Hassett   v.   Durbin,    271   N.W. 

867,  132  Neb.  315. 
Teat. — Maury    v.    Turner,    Cora.App., 

244  S.W.  809. 
Va. — Drewry  v.  Doyle,  20  S,E.2d  548, 

179  Va.  715. 
Wash.— Colby  v.  Hiraes,  17  P.2d  606, 

171  Wash.  83. 
33  C.J.  p  1075  note  45. 

27.  N.T. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Universal  Credit  Co.  v.  Binderman, 
288  N.T.S.  79,  80,  15  Misc.  917. 

33  C.J.  p  1075  note  48. 

28.  La.— Alter    v.    Pickett,    24    La. 
Ann.  513. 

33  C.J.  p  1075  note  51. 

29.  Md. — C.    L    T.    Corporation    v. 
Powell,    170   A.    740,   166   Md.   208. 

33  C.J.  p  1078  note  77. 

33.    Mass.— Hall   v.   Young,   8   Pick. 

80,  15  Am.D.  180. 
33  C.J.  p  1078  <note  78. 

31.  Tex. — Lloyds    Casualty    Co.    of 
New  York  v.  Lena,  Civ.App.,  62  S. 
W.2d  497,  error  dismissed. 

33  C.J.  p  1078  note  79. 

32.  Ga. — Raney   v.    McRae,    14    Ga. 
589,  60  Am.D.   660. 

33  C.J.  p  1078  note  80. 

33.  Ga. — Central  Bank  t.  Gibson,  11 
Ga.  453. 

Creditors 

Where  neither  of  defendants  was 
domiciled  in  the  county  in  which 
suit  was  brought,  a  judgment  in  fa- 


vor  of  a  creditor  has  been  held  void 
as  to  other  creditors. — Anthony  v. 
Bobo,  81  S.E.  128,  141  Ga.  440. 

34.  U.S. — Kerna/n  v.  Campbell,  C.C. 
A.N.Y.,  45  F.2d  123— In  re  Ameri- 
can Fidelity  Corporation,  D.C.Cal., 
28  F.Supp,  462— U.  S.  v,  U.  S.  Fi- 
delity &  Guaranty  Co.,  D.C.Okl., 
24  F.Supp.  961,  modified  on  other 
grounds,  C.C.A.,  106  F.2d  804,  re- 
versed on  other  grounds  60  S.Ct 
654,  -309  U.S.  506,  84  L.Ed.  894. 

Ala.— Farrell  v.  Farrell,  10  So.2d 
153,  243  Ala.  389— Ex  parte  Kelly, 
128  So.  443,  221  Ala.  339. 

Ariz.— Varnes  v.  White,  12  P.2d  870, 
40  Ariz.  427. 

Ark. — Axley  v.  Hammock,  50  S.W. 
2d  608,  185  Ark.  939. 

Cal. — Northington  v.  Industrial  Acci- 
dent Commission,  72  P.2d  909,  23 
Cal.App.2d  255 — Ex  parte  Cohen, 
290  P.  512,  107  CaLApp.  288— Jel- 
len  v.  O'Brien,  264  P.2d  1115,  89 
Cal.App.  505. 

Conn. — O'Leary  v*  Waterbury  Title 
Co.,  166  A,  673,  117  Conn.  39. 

Flo. — United  Brotherhood  of  Carpen- 
ters and  Joiners  of  America  v. 
Graves  Inv.  Co.,  15  So.2d  196,  153 
Fla.  529 — Arcadia  Citrus  Growers 
Ass'n  v.  Hollingsworth,  185  So. 
431,  135  Fla.  322 — Skipper  v.  Schu- 
macker,  169  So.  58,  124  Fla.  384, 
appeal  dismissed  and  certiorari  de- 
nied 57  S.Ct.  39,  299  U.S.  507,  81 
L.Bd.  376— Coslick  v.  Finney,  140 
So.  216.  104  Fla.  394. 

Ga. — Deans  v.  Deans,  137  S.E.  829, 
164  Ga.  162 — McKenzie  v.  Perdue, 
19  S.B.2d  765,  67  Ga.App.  202,  re- 
versed on  other  grounds  Perdue 
v.  McKenzie,  21  S.B.2d  705,  194 
G*a.  356,  vacated  McKenzie  v.  Per- 
due, 23  S.E.2d  183,  68  Ga.App. 
498 — Robinson  v.  Attapulgus  Clay 
Co.,  189  S.E.  555,  55  Ga.App.  141— 
Corpus  Juris  cited  la  Georgia 

48 


Power  Co.  v.  Friar,  171  S.E.  210, 
214,  47  Ga.App.  675. 

Hawaii.— Meyer  v.  Territory,  36  Ha- 
waii 75 — Wong  Kwai  Tong  v.  Choy 
Yin,  31  Hawaii  603. 

111.— -People  ex  rel.  Fisher  v.  Balti- 
more &  O.  R.  Co.,  61  N.E.2d  382, 
390  111.  389— Martin  v.  Schillo,  60 
N.E.2d  392,  389  111.  697,  certiorari 
denied  65  S.Ct  1572,  325  U.S.  880, 
89  L.Ed.  1996 — Herb  v.  Pitcaim,  61 
N.B.2d  277,  384  HI.  237,  reversed 
on  other  grounds  65  S.Ct  954,  325 
U.S.  77,  89  L.Ed.  1483,  rehearing 
denied  65  S.Ct  1188,  325  U.S.  8-93, 
89  L.Ed.  2005.  Opinion  supple- 
mented 64  N.E.2d  318,  392  HI. 
151 — Werner  v.  Illinois  Cent  R. 
Co.,  42  NJS.2d  82,  379  HI.  559— 
Heitman  Trust  Co.  v.  Parlee,  40 
N.B.2d  732,  314  Ill.App.  83— Sun- 
beam Heating  Co.  v.  Chambers,  38 
N.B.2d  544,  312  IlLApp.  382— Davis 
v.  Oliver,  25  N.B.2d  905,  304  111. 
App.  71,  transferred,  see  20  N.E.2d 
582,  371  111.  287— In  re  Shanks' 
Estate,  282  Ill.App.  1. 

Ind. — Calumet  Teaming  &  Trucking 
Co.  v.  Young,  33  N.E.2d  109,  218 
Ind.  468,  rehearing  denied  33  N.E. 
2d  583,  210  Ind.  468— Brown  v. 
State,  37  N.B.2d  73,  219  Ind.  251, 
137  A.L.B.  679. 

Kan.— Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Starke 
v.  Starke,  125  P.2d  738,  740,  155 
Kan.  331— Corpus  Juris  quoted  in 
.Board  of  Commissioners  of  Craw- 
ford County  v.  Radley,  8  P.2d  386, 
387,  134  Kan.  704. 

Ky. — -Max  Ams,  Inc.  v.  Barker,  170 
S.W.2d  45,  293  Ky.  698— Wagner 
v.  Peoples  Building  &  Loan  Ass'n, 
167  S.W.2d  825,  292  Ky.  691— 
Lowther  v.  Moss,  89  S.W.2d  501, 
239  Ky,  290 — Lorton  v.  Asbrook, 
295  S.W.  102?,  220  Ky.  830. 

La. — Jones  v.  Crescent  City  Ice  Mfg. 
Co.,  -3  La.App.  7 — State  ex  rel. 
FOUXTOUX  v.  Board  of  Directors  of 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


19 


held  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  particular  court,  or 
is  placed  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  anoth- 
er court,85  or  where  the  jurisdiction  depends  on  a 
statute  which  was  repealed  before  suit.86  Where 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  depends  on  the  amount 
in  controversy,  a  judgment  for  a  sum  in  excess  of 
the  amount  over  which  the  court  has  jurisdiction  is 
void.87 

Consent  of  parties.  Since  the  agreement  or  con- 
sent of  the  parties  cannot  give  the  court  the  right 
to  adjudicate  on  any  cause  of  action  or  subject  mat- 
ter which  the  law  lias  withheld  from  its  cogni- 


zance, any  judgment  rendered  in  such  a  case  is  void 
notwithstanding  such  consent  or  agreement.88 

<L  Jurisdiction  of  Question  Determined  and  Be- 
lief Granted 

It  Is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  a  Judgment  that 
the  court  should  have  jurisdiction  of  the  question  which 
its  judgment  assumes  to  decide,  and  jurisdiction  to  ren- 
der a  judgment  for  the  particular  remedy  or  relief  which 
the  judgment  undertakes  to  grant. 

In  addition  to  jurisdiction  of  the  parties  and  the 
subject  matter,  it  is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  a 
judgment  that  the  court  should  have  jurisdiction  of 


Public  Schools  of  Jefferson  Parish, 
3  La,App.  2. 

Mass. — Carroll  v.  Berger,  150  N.B. 
870,  255  Mass.  132. 

Mich. — Ward  v.  Hunter  Machinery 
Co..  248  N.W.  864,  263  Mich.  445. 

Mo. — Crabtree  v.  .SDtna  Life  Ins.  Co., 
Ill  S.W.2d  103,  341  Mo.  1173— 
State  ex  rel.  National  Lead  Co.  v. 
Smith,  App.,  134  S.W.2d  1061 — 
Noll  v.  Alexander.  App.,  282  S.W. 
739. 

N.J.— Fidelity  Union  Trust  Co,  v. 
Ackerman,  191  A.  813,  121  N.J.BQ. 
497.  modified  on  other  grounds 
199  A.  379,  123  N.J.Eq..  556. 

N.M. — State  ex  rel.  Slate  Tax  Com- 
mission v.  Chavez,  101  P.2d  389, 
44  N.M.  260 — In  re  Field's  Estate, 
60  P.2d  945,  40  N.M.  423. 

N.T. — Anonymous  v.  Anonymous,  22 
N.Y.S.2d  598,  174  Misc.  906— Cor- 
pus  Juris  quoted  In  Van  Buren  v. 
Harrison.  299  N.Y.S.  485,  486,  164 
Misc.  774— Universal  Credit  Co.  v. 
Blinderman,  2*8  N.T.S.  79,  158 
Misc.  917 — MacAffer  v.  Boston  & 
M.  R.  R.,  273  N.Y.S.  679,  242  App. 
Div.  140.  affirmed  197  N.E.  328,  268 
N.Y.  400— Shaul  v.  Fidelity  &  De- 
posit Co.  of  Maryland,  227  N.Y.S. 
163.  131  Misc.  401,  affirmed  230  N. 
Y.S.  910,  224  App.Div.  773. 

N.C.— Clark  v.  Caroltea  Homes.  128 
S.E.  20,  189  N.C.  703. 

Ohio.— Ruckert  v.  Matil  Realty  Co., 
App.f  40  N.E.2d  688 — Sampliner  v. 
Bialasky,  25  Ohio  N.P.,N.S.,  161. 

Okl. — Fitzsimmons  v.  Oklahoma  City, 
135  P.2d  340,  192  Okl.  248— Okla- 
homa City  v.  Robinson,  65  P.2d 
531,  179  Okl.  309— Moroney  v.  State 
ex  rel.  Southern  Surety  Co.,  31  P. 
2d  926,  168  Okl.  69— Henson  v. 
Oklahoma  State  Bank,  23  P.2d  709, 
165  Okl.  1— State  v.  Armstrong.  18 
P.2d  198,  158  Okl.  290. 

8.C.— Betsill  v.  Betsill,  196  S.E.  381, 
187  S.C.  50. 

8.D.— Reddin  v.  Frick,  223  N.W.  50, 
54  S.D.  277. 

Teun. — Manning  v.  Feidelson,  186  S. 
W.2d  510,  175  Ten*.  676. 

Tex. — Campsey  v.  Brumley,  Com, 
AppM  55  S.W.2d  810— H,  H.  Wat- 
son Co*  v.  Cobb  Grain  Co.,  Com. 
App.,  292  S.W.  174— Maury  v.  Tur- 
ner. CbnuApp.,  244  S.W.  809 — 

49  C.J.S.-4 


Kuteman  v.  Ratlin!,   Civ.App.,   154 

S.W.2d  864 — Commander  v.  Bryan, 

Civ.App.,    123    S.W.2d    1008— Olton 

State  Bank  v.  Howell,  Civ.App.,  105 

S.W.2d  287— Reed  v.  State,  Cr.,  187 

S.W.2d  660. 
Va. — Robertson     v.     Commonwealth, 

25   S.E.2d  852,  181  Va.  520,  146  A. 

L.R.  966 — Drewry  v.  Doyle,  20  S.E. 

2d    548,    179    Va.    715— Barnes    v. 

American   Fertilizer  Co.,   130    S.E. 

902,  144  Va.  692. 
Vt. — In  re  Hanrahan's  Will,   194  A. 

471,  109  Vt.  108. 
Wash.— Colby  v.  Himes,  17  P.2d  606, 

171  Wash.  83. 
W.Va. — Corpus   Juris   cited  in  Hus- 

tead    v.    Boggess,    12    S.E.2d    514, 

515,  122  W.Va.  493. 
33  C.J.  p  1075  note  61. 

Nullity  of  judgment  results  from 
want  of  jurisdiction  over  the  sub- 
ject matter. 
Cal. — Hunter    v.    Superior    Court    In 

and    for   Riverside   County,    97   P. 

2d    492,    36    CaI.App.2d    100. 
Tex. — San  Jacinto  Finance  Corpora- 
tion v.  Perkins,  Civ.App.,   94  S.W. 

2d  1213. 
General  and  special  jurisdiction. 

The  rule  that  jurisdiction  is  of 
two  kinds,  jurisdiction  of  the  sub- 
ject matter  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
person  and  that  both  must  concur 
or  judgment  will  be  void  in  any 
case  in  which  court  has  assumed  to 
act,  refers  to  general  jurisdiction 
vested  in  court  and  applies  to  spe- 
cial jurisdiction  only  to  extent  court 
exceeds  special  jurisdiction  granted. 
—Herb  v.  Pitcairn,  64  N.E.2d  519, 
392  111.  138. 

35.  U.S. — Woods  Bros.  Const  Co.  v. 
Yankton   County,  C.C.A.S.D.,  54  F. 
2d   304— Corpus  Juris  cited  in  U. 
S.   v.   Turner,   C.C.A.N.D.,    47   F.2d 
86,  89. 

Kan. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Board 
of  Commissioners  of  Crawford 
County  v.  Radley,  8  P.2d  386,  887, 
134  J£an.  704. 

33  C.J.  P  1076  note  62. 

36.  Kan. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Board  of  Commissioners  of  Craw- 
ford County  v.  Radley,  8  P.2d  S86, 
387,  134  Kan.  704. 

49 


Neb. — Omaha  Coal,  Coke  &  Lime  Co. 
v.  Suess,  74  N.W.  620,  54  Neb.  879. 

37.  Tenn. — Reynolds  v.  Hamilton,  77 
S.W.2d  986,  18  Tenn.App.  380. 

Tex. — Davis  v.  Jordan,  Civ.App.,  151 

S.W.2d  291. 
33  C.J.  p  1076  note  68. 
Separation,  of  single  cause  of  action 

Judgments  rendered  in  a  court  of 
limited  jurisdiction  in  separate  ac- 
tions brought  by  landlord  for  sepa- 
rate past-due  installments  of  rent, 
the  total  of  which  installments  ex- 
ceeded the  jurisdiction  of  the  court, 
was  void  for  want  of  Jurisdiction, 
Jn  view  of  attempted  separation  of 
single  cause  of  action. — F.  W.  Wool- 
worth  &  Co.  v.  Zimmerman;  17$  A. 
474,  13  N.J.Misc.  505. 

38.  Ala.— Ex  parte  Phillips,  165  So. 
SO,  231  Ala.  364— Crabtree  v.  Mil- 
ler,  155   So.   529,   229   Ala.   103. 

Ark. — Hendricks  v.  Henson,  92  S.W. 

2d  867,  192  Ark.  544. 
La. — Walker  v.   Fitzgerald,  App.,  24 

So.2d  263. 
Mo.— In  re  Buckles,  53  S.W.2d  1055, 

331  Mo.  405. 
N.J.— Fidelity    Union    Trust    Co.    v. 

Ackerman,    191    A.    813,    121    N.J. 

Eq.  497,  modified  on  other  grounds 

199  A.  379,  123  N.J.B<i.  556. 
N.Y.— In  re  Brerman's  Estate,  221  N. 

Y.S.  462,  129  Misc.  283. 
Ohio.— Bobala    v.    Bobala,     33    N.E. 

2d  845,  68  Ohio  App.  63. 
Va. — Nolde  Bros.  v.  Chalkley,  35  S. 

B.2d  827. 
W.Va. — Corpus    Juris    cited   in    BXi- 

stead   v.    Boggess,    12    S.E.2d    514, 

615,  122  W.Va.  493. 
33  C.J.  p  1077  note  75. 
Estoppel 

(1)  It  has  been  held  that  when- 
ever there  is  want  of  authority  to 
hear  and   determine   subject   matter 
of    controversy,    an   adjudication    on 
merits   is   null,   and  does   not  estop 
even  assenting  party. — Cooper  v.  Da- 
vis, 248  N.Y.S.  227,  231  App.Div.  527. 

(2)  It    has    been    held,    however, 
that  one  who   invokes  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  court  cannot  object  to  a 
judgment    on    the    ground    that    the 
court  had  n«  jurisdiction  of  defend- 
ant.— Fostoria   v.   Fox,   54   NJE.   370, 
60  Ohio  St.  340. 


19 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


the  question  which  its  judgment  assumes  to  de- 
cide,39 and  jurisdiction  to  render  a  judgment  for 
the  particular  remedy  or  relief  which  the  judg- 


ment undertakes  to  grant.40    Where  the  court  does 
not  have  such  jurisdiction,  the  judgment  is  void.41 


39.  Idaho.— Corpus  Juris   guoted  in 
Banbury    v.    Brailsford,    158    P.2d 
8*26,    886— Corpus   Juris   quoted  in 
Baldwin  v.  Anderson,   8  P.2d  461, 
462,     51    Idaho     614— -Maloney    v. 
Zipf,     287    P.     632,     41     Idaho     30. 

Kan. — Corpus  Juris  gaoted  in  Board 
of  Commissioners  of  Crawford 
County  v.  Radley,  8  P.2d  386,  387, 
134  Kan.  704. 

Mo.—State  ex  rel.  National  Lead  Co. 
v.  Smith,  App.,  134  S.W.2d  1061— 
Corpus  Juris  cited  in,  Mesendleck 
Grain  Co.  v.  Folz,  50  S.W.2d  159, 
161,  227  Mo.App.  24. 

Ohio. — Sampliner  v.  Bialasky,  25 
Ohio  N.P..N.S.,  161. 

N.M. — State  ex  rel.  State  Tax  Com- 
mission v.  Chavez,  101  P.2d  389, 
44  N.M.  260— In  re  Field's  Estate, 
60  P.2d  945,  40  N.M.  423. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Hinkle 
V.  Jones,  66  P.2d  1073,  1076,  180 
Okl.  17— Corpus  Juris  quoted  in 
Oklahoma  City  v.  Robinson,  65  P. 
2d  531,  533,  179  Okl.  309— Corpus 
Juris  quoted  in  Whltehead  v. 
Bunch,  272  P.  878,  879,  134  Okl. 
63. 

Va.— Hubbard  v.  Davis,  25  S.B.2d 
256,  181  Va.  549— Drewry  v.  Doyle, 
20  S.B.2d  548,  179  Va,  715. 

33  C.J.  p  1076  note  70. 

Determination  of  Jurisdiction 
Jurisdiction  to  render  judgment  in 

particular  action  must  be  determined 

and   tested  by  pleadings  and  relief 

sought. — Borfcng   v.    Dodd,    217   N.W. 

580,  116  Neb.  336. 

40.  U.S.— U.  S.  v.  U.  S.  Fidelity  & 
Guaranty  Co.,  D.C.OkL,  24  F.Supp. 
961,  modified  on  other  grounds  106 
F.2d      804,      reversed     on      other 
grounds  60  S.Ct.  653.  309  U.S.  506, 
84  L.Ed.   894. 

Ariz. — Wall  v.  Superior  Court  of 
Yavapal  County,  89  P.2d  624,  53 
Ariz.  344— Hill  v.  Favour,  84  P. 
3d  675,  52  Ariz.  561— Varnes  v. 
White,  12  P.2d  870,  40  Ariz.  427 
— Arizona  Land  &  Stock  Co.  v. 
Markus,  296  P.  251,  37  Ariz.  530 
— Western  Land  &  Cattle  Co.  v. 
National  Bank  of  Arizona  at  Phoe- 
nix, 239  P.  299,  29  Ariz.  61. 

Cai.— Jellen  v.  O'Brien,  264  P.  1115, 
89  CaLApp.  505. 

Colo. — Williams  v.  Hankins,  225  P. 
243,  75  Colo.  136 — People  v.  Burke. 
212  P.  837,  72  Colo.  486,  30  A.L.R. 
1085. 

Fla, — United  Brotherhood  of  Carpen- 
ters and  Joiners  of  America  v. 
Graves  Inv.  Co.,  15  So.2d  196,  153 
Fla.  529 — Arcadia  Citrus  Growers 
Ass'n  y.  Hollingsworth,  185  So. 
431,  135  Fla.  322— Skipper  v. 
Schumacher,  169  So.  58,  124  Fla. 
384,  appeal  dismissed  and  certio- 
rari  denied  57  S.Ct  39,  299  U.S. 


507,  81  L.Ed.  376— Chllds  v.  Boots, 
152  So.  212,  112  Fla,  277— Coslick 
v.  Finney,  140  So.  216,  104  Fla, 
394. 

Idaho. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Ban- 
bury  v.  Brailsford,  158  P.2d  826, 
836 — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Bald- 
win v.  Anderson,  8  P.2d  461,  462, 
51  Idaho  614— Maloney  v.  Zipf,  237 
P.  632,  41  Idaho  30. 

111.— Hummel  v.'Cardwell,  62  N.B.2d 
433,  390  111.  5-26,  certiorari  denied 
66  S.Ct.  819,  three  oases — Toman 
v.  Park  Castles  Apartment  Bldg. 
Corporation,  31  N.E.2d  299,  375  111. 
293 — Mclnness  v.  Oscar  F.  Wilson 
Printing  Co.,  258  Ill.App.  161. 

Kan. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Board 
of  Commissioners  of  Crawford 
County  v.  Radley,  8  P.2d  386,  387, 
134  Kan.  704. 

Ky. — Lowther  v.  Moss,  39  S.W.2d 
501,  239  Ky.  290. 

Mass. — New  England  Home  for  Deaf 
Mutes  v.  Leader  Filling  Stations 
Corporation,  177  N.E.  97,  276  Mass. 
153. 

Okl. — Fitzslmmons  v.  Oklahoma 
City,  135  P.2d  340,  192  Okl.  248— 
Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Hfeikle  v. 
Jones,  66  P.2d  1073,  1076,  180 
Okl.  17 — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in 
Oklahoma  City  v.  Robinson,  65  P. 
2d  531,  533,  179  Okl.  309— Henson 
v.  Oklahoma  State  Bank,  23  P.2d 
709,  165  Okl.  1 — Corpus  Juris  quot- 
ed in  Whitehead  v.  Bunch,  272  P. 
878,  879,  134  Okl.  63. 

Tex. — Nymon  v.  Eggert,  Civ.App., 
154  S.W.2d  157. 

Utah. — Hampshire  v.  Woolley,  269 
P.  135,  72  Utah  106. 

Va. — Drewry  v.  Doyle,  20  S.B.2d  548, 
179  Va.  715— Hubbard  v.  Davis,  25 
S.E.2d  256,  181  Va.  549— Corpus 
Juris  cited  in  .astna  Casualty  & 
Surety  Co.  of  Hartford,  Conn.  v. 
Board  of  Supervisors  of  Warren 
Co.,  168  S.E.  617,  626,  160  Va. 
11. 

33  C.J.  p  1076  note  71. 

Court  of  general  Jurisdiction 

Even  a  court  of  general  jurisdic- 
tion has  no  power  to  render  any 
judgment  affecting  persons  or  prop- 
erty, unless  the  particular  judgment 
is  brought  within  court's  jurisdic- 
tion according  to  law. — Herb  v.  Pit- 
cairn,  51  N.B.2d  277,  384  111.  237, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  65  S.Ct 
954,  326  U.S.  77,  89  L.Ed.  1483,  re- 
hearing denied  66  S.Ct.  1188,  325  U. 
S.  893,  89  L.Ed.  2005.  Opinion  sup- 
plemented 64  N.E.2d  318,  392  111. 
151. 

Jurisdiction  or  power  to  render  a 
particular  judgment  does  not  mean 
that  the  judgment  rendered  must  be  j 
the  one  that  should  have  been  ren-  I 
dered,  since  the  power  or  jurisdic-  J 

50 


tion  to  decide  carries  with  it  the 
power  or  jurisdiction  to  decide 
wrong  as  well  as  to  decide  right. — 
U.  S.  v.  U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaranty 
Co.,  D.C.Okl.,  24  F.Supp.  961,  modi- 
fied on  other  grounds,  C.C.A.,  106  F. 
2d  804,  reversed  on  other  grounds  60 
S.Ct  653,  309  U.S.  506,  84  L.Ed.  894. 

41.  Cal. — Hunter  v.  Superior  Court 
in  and  for  Riverside  County,  97 
P.2d  492.  36  Cal.App.2d  100. 

Ky. — Lortoh  v.  Ashbrook,  295  S.W. 
1027,  220  Ky.  830. 

Mo.—State  ex  rel.  National  Lead  Co. 
v.  Smith,  App.,  134  S.W.2d  1061 — 
Mesendieck  Grain  Co.  v.  Folz,  50 
S.W.2d  159,  161,  227  Mo.App.  24. 

N.T. — Lynbrook  Gardens  v.  Ullmann, 
36  N.T.S.2d  888,  179  Misc.  132,  af- 
firmed 37  N.T.S.2d  671,  265  App. 
Div.  859,  reversed  on  other 

.  grounds  53  N.E.2d  353,  291  N.Y. 
472,  152  A.L.R.  959,  certiorari  de- 
nied 64  S.Ct.  1144,  322  U.S.  742, 
88  L.Ed.  1575. 

Okl.— Sabin  v.  Levorsen,  145  P.2d 
402,  193  Okl.  320,  certiorari  denied 
64  S.Ct.  205,  320  U.S.  792,  88  L.Bd. 
477,  rehearing  denied  64  S.Ct.  368, 
320  U.S.  815,  88  LJEd.  4*2— Fitz- 
simmons  v.  Oklahoma  City,  135  P. 
2d  340,  343,  192  Okl.  248— Moroney 
v.  State  ex  rel.  Southern  Surety 
Co.,  31  P.2d  926,  168  Okl.  69— State 
v.  Armstrong,  13  P.2d  198,  168 
Okl.  290— Blake  v.  Metz,  276  P. 
762,  136  Okl.  146,  followed  in  276 
P.  765,  136  Okl.  150— Askew  v.  Ter- 
rell, 243  P,  495,  113  Okl.  206— Vann 
v.  Adklns,  234  P.  644,  169  Okl.  12 
— Burris  v.  Straughn,  232  P.  294, 
107  Okl.  299— Ex  parte  Dawes,  239 
P.  689,  31  Okl.Cr.  397. 

Tex. — San  Jacinto  Finance  Corpora- 
tion v.  Perkins,  Civ.App.,  94  S.W. 
2d  1213— Reed  v.  State,  Cr.,  187  S. 
W.2d  660. 

Wyo. — State  v.  District  Court  of 
Eighth  Judicial  Dist.  in  and  for 
Natrona  County,  238  P.  545,  33 
Wyo.  281. 

33  C.J.  p  1077  note  72. 

A  decision,  whether  correct  or 
wrong,  made  by  a  court  in  excess  of 
its  jurisdiction  and  power  is  void. 
—Spencer  v.  Franks,  195  A.  306,  173 
Md.  73,  114  A.L.R.  263. 

Manner  forbidden  by  law 

A  judgment  is  void  when  the  court 
proceeds  without  authority  and  in 
a  manner  forbidden  by  law  with  re- 
spect to  matter  being  adjudicated, 
although  it  may  have  jurisdiction  of 
parties  and  subject  matter.— Wagner 
v.  Peoples  Building  &  Loan  Ass'n, 
167  S.W.2d  825,  292  Ky.  691— Jones 
v.  Keen,  160  S.W.2d  164,  289  Ky.  779 
— Soper  v.  Foster,  51  S.W.2d  927.  244 
Ky.  658. 


49    C.J.S. 

§  20.    Matured  Cause  of  Action 

It  Is  essential  to  the  validity  and  regularity  of  a 
judgment  that  the  demand  whereon  it  is  rendered  shall 
have  existed  as  a  matured  cause  of  action  at  the  time 
the  action  was  commenced. 

It  is  essential  to  the  validity  and  regularity  of  a 
judgment  that  the  demand  whereon  it  is  rendered 
shall  have  existed  as  a  matured  cause  of  action  at 
the  time  the  action  was  commenced,42  it  being  a 
general  rule  that  a  party  must  recover  according  to 
his  legal  rights  at  the  commencement  of  the  ac- 


JUDGMENTS 


§  22 


§  21.    Definitiveness 

A  judgment  must  be  definitive* 

A  judgment  must  be  definitive.44  By  this  is 
meant  that  the  decision  itself  must  purport  to  de- 
cide finally  the  rights  of  the  parties  on  the  issue 
submitted,  by  specifically  denying  or  granting  the 


remedy  sought  by  the  action.45  The  converse  of 
this  proposition  is  also  true,  and  every  definitive  de- 
termination of  the  rights  of  the  parties  in  a  pro- 
ceeding before  a  competent  tribunal  is  a  judg- 
ment46 

§  22.    Reasons  for  Judgment 

OrdlnarHy  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  court  for 
the  Judgment  rendered  do  not  constitute  a  part  of  the 
judgment. 

Although  it  has  been  said  that  every  court  should 
state  on  the  record  the  legal  grounds  for  its  judg- 
ment,47 the  reasons  assigned  by  the  court  for  the 
judgment  rendered  do  not  constitute  a  part  of  the 
judgment.48  Also  if  the  judgment  given  is  correct, 
it  is  immaterial  whether  the  reasons  adduced  for 
giving  such  a  judgment  are  correct.49  Therefore  a 
judgment  or  decree  of  the  court  controls  the  writ- 
ten opinion,  and  if  they  are  at  variance,  the  former 
prevails  and  determines  the  rights  of  the  parties.60 


Not  a  Judgment 

When  judgment  roll  on  its  face 
shows  that  court  was  without  juris- 
diction to  render  the  particular  judg- 
ment, Its  pronouncement  Is  not  In 
fact  a  judgment. — Hodson  v. 
O'Keeffe,  229  P.  722,  71  Mont.  322. 
Belief  denied  "by  law 

A  Judgment  granting  relief  which 
the  law  declares  shall  not  be  grant- 
ed is  void. — Moroney  v.  State  ex  rel. 
Southern  Surety  Co.,  31  P.2d  926,  168 
Okl.  69— State  v.  Armstrong,  13  P. 
2d  198,  158  Okl.  290. 
Special  statutory  powers 

Where  court  is  exercising  special 
statutory  powers,  Judgment  in  ex- 
cess of  statutory  authority  Is  void. 
— uEtna  Casualty  &  Surety  Co.  of 
Hartford,  Conn.,  v.  Board  of  Sup'rs 
of  Warren  County,  168  S.E,  617,  160 
•Va.  11. 
Transcending  Jurisdiction, 

Where  court,  after  acquiring  Ju- 
risdiction of  a  subject  matter,  tran- 
scends the  limits  of  Jurisdiction  con- 
ferred, its  Judgment  Is  void. — Flake 
v.  Pretzel,  46  N.B.2d  375,  381  HI. 
498. 

42.  Wash, — Mondiolf     v.     American 
Bldg.  Co.,  145  P.  577,  83  Wash.  584. 

33  C.J.  p  1097  note  9. 

43.  N.Y.— -Fults   v.   Munro,    95   N.E. 
23,  202  N.Y.  34,  87  KILA..N.S.,  600, 
Ann.Cas.l912D  870. 

33  C.J.  p  1097  note  10. 

Death  rendering-  decree  timely 

However,  where  testatrix  devised 
realty  in  trust  for  benefit  of  hus- 
band during  his  life,  the  trust  to 
terminate  at  husband's  death,  and 
husband  who  elected  to  take  against 
the  will  died  during  pendency  of  de- 
fendants' appeal  in  husband's  parti- 
tion suit,  realty  was  to  be  distribut- 
ed by  trustee  as  directed  by  will 


and  decree,  and  order  directing  sale 
of  property  and  that  trustee  dis- 
tribute proceeds,  if  premature  when 
entered,  was  held  to  be  rendered 
timely  by  husband's  death. — Flynn 
v.  Bryan,  Mo.,  154  S.W.2d  773. 

44.  Cal.— Kosloff  v.   Kosloff,  154  P. 
2d  431,  67  Cal.App.2d  374— Corpus 
Juris  quoted  in  Makzoume  v.  Mak- 
zoume, 123  P.2d  72,  74,  50  CaLApp. 
2d  229. 

33  C.J.  p  1103  note  29. 

45.  CaL— Kosloff  v.   Kosloff,   154   P. 
2d  431,   67  Cal.App.2d  374— Corpus 
Juris  quoted  in  Makzoume  v.  Mak- 
zoume, 123  P.2d  72,  74,  50  CaLApp. 
2d  229. 

N.Y.— Lowe  v.  Lowe,   192  N.E.    291, 

265  N.Y.  197. 
33  C.J.  p  1104  note  30. 

Judgment  determining  nothing 
and  leaving  parties  where  they 
started  is  wholly  ineffective. — Per- 
mian Oil  Co.  v.  Smith,  Civ.App.,  47 
S.W.2d  500,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  73  S.W.2d  490,  129  Tex.  413, 
111  AL.R.  1152,  rehearing  denied 
107  S.W.2d  564,  129  Tex.  413,  111  A. 
L.R.  1175. 

46.  Cal.— Kosloff  v.   Kosloff,   154   P. 
2d  431,  67  Cal.App.2d  374— Corpus 
Juris  quoted  in  Makzoume  v.  Mak- 
zoume,   123    P.2d    72.    74,    50    Cal. 
App.2d  229. 

33  C.J.  p  1104  note  31. 

47.  N.Y.— Newman  v.  Mayer,   65  N. 
T.S.    294,   52   App.Div.   209,    7   N.Y. 
Ann.Cas.   497. 

Va.-— Preston  v.  Auditor,  1  Call.  471, 

5  Va.  471. 

Construction   of  Judgments   In   gen- 
eral see  infra  §  436. 
Constitutional  requirement 

(1)  Where  a  constitutional  provi- 
sion requires  the  court  to  state  its 
reasons  for  the  Judgment  rendered, 

51 


and  this  is  not  done,  the  Judgment 
must  be  reversed. — Dorr  v.  Jouet,  20 
La.Ann.  27—33  C.J.  p  1105  note  48. 
(2)  The  constitutional  mandate 
that  Judges  shall  refer  to  law  and 
adduce  reasons  on  which  definitive 
Judgments  are  founded  refers  only 
to  cases  wherein  real  controversies 
or  claims  are  decided  or  adjudicated 
and  not  to  rule  taken  by  wife  for 
issuance  of  writ  of  fieri  facias  on 
Judgment  for  amount  of  past-due 
and  exigible  alimony  payments  pre- 
viously ordered  by  Judgment  in  her 
suit  for  separation  from  bed  and 
board. — Erdal  v.  Brdal,  La.App.,  26 
So.2d  377. 

48.  Cal. — Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
Martin   v.    Board   of   Trustees   of 
ILeland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  99 
P.2d  684,  686,  37  Cal.App.2d  481. 

Ga.— Bales  v.  Wright,   200  S.E.  192, 

59  Ga.App.  191. 
Mo. — Smith  v.  Travelers'  Protective 

Ass'n  of  America,    6   S.W.2d   870, 

•319  Mo.  1120. 
N.C. — Gettys  v.  Town  of  Marion,  10 

S.B.2d  799,  218  N.C.  266. 
Okl.— McGann    v.    McGann,    87    P.2d 

939,  169  Okl.  515. 
Tex. — Davis    v.    Hemphlll,    ClvJLpp., 

243  S.W.  691. 
33  C.J.  p  1104  note  38. 

49.  Minn. — Kipp  v.  Clinger,   106  N* 
W.  108,  97  Minn.  135. 

33  C.J.  p  1105  note  40. 

50.  Iowa. — In  re  Evans'  Estate,  291 
N.W.  460,  228  Iowa  908. 

N.Y. — People     ex    rel.     Metropolitan 

Trust  Co.  of  City  of  New  York  v. 

Travis,    176  N.Y.S.    765,   107  Misc. 

377,    affirmed    180    N.Y.S.    659,    191 

App.Dlv.  129, 
Wash.— Reagh  v.  Shalkenbach,  56  P. 

2d  673. 
33  C.J.  p  1104  note  39. 


1  23 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


If  the  judgment  is  one  which  the  court  had  power  i  jurisdiction  because  it  is  based  or  made  on  an  im- 
to  make  on  any  ground,  it  is  not  void  for  want  of  |  proper  ground.51 

B.  PROCESS,  NOTICE,  OE  APPEARANCE 


§  23.    Necessity 

A  valid  judgment  may  be  rendered  against  a  defend- 
ant only  where  he  has  been  given  notice;  and  accord* 
tngly  a  judgment  which  is  rendered  without  any  notice 
to,  or  service  of  process  on  the  defendant,  and  without 
his  voluntarily  appearing,  is  generally  void  for  want  of 
Jurisdiction. 

As  a  general  rule,  before  a  valid  judgment  may  be 
rendered  against  a  defendant,  he  must  be  accorded 


an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  as  discussed  supra  § 
18,  and  for  this  purpose  he  must  be  given  notice 
of  the  action  or  proceeding  against  him,52  and  this 
notice  cannot  constitutionally  be  dispensed  with.53 
Accordingly  a  judgment  which  is  rendered  without 
any  form  of  notice  to,  or  service  on,  defendant  is 
wholly  void  for  want  of  jurisdiction,54  unless  he 
voluntarily  appears,  as  discussed  infra  §  26,  or 


Operation  and  effect  of  opinions  gen- 
erally see  Courts  §  222  b. 
''Decision" 

In  case  of  a  variance  between  the 
"'Judgment"  and  the  "decision,"  the 
"'judgment"  controls.— Wo  Kee  &  Co. 
v.  U.  S.,  28  C.C.P.A.Customs  272— 
U.  S.  v.  Penn.  Commercial  Corpora- 
tion of  America,  15  Ct.Cust.App.  206 
— Roessler  &  Hasslacher  Chemical 
Co.  v.  U.  S.,  13  CtCustApp.  451. 

51.  U.S. — Converse  v.  Stewart,  C.C. 
3ST.T.,   192   F.   941.  affirmed  197  F. 
1S2,  118  C.C.A.  212. 

52.  U.S. — Sylvan  Beach  v.  Koch,  C. 
C.A.MO.,    140    F.2d    852— Smith    v. 
Stark    Trucking,    D.C.Ohio,    63    F. 
Supp.   826 — Fisher  v.  Jordan,  D.C. 
Tex.,   32  F.Supp.  608,  reversed  on 
other  grounds   116   F.2d  183,  cer- 
tiorari  denied  Jordan  v.  Fisher,  61 
S.Ct.    734,    812    U.S.    697,    85    L.Ed. 
1132. 

Cal.— Gray  v.  Hall,  265  P.  246,  203 
Cal.  306. 

Ga.— Elliott  v.  Adams,  160  S.E.  336, 
173  Ga.  312. 

N.Y. — Rochester  Sav.  Bank  v.  Mon- 
roe County,  S  N.Y.S.2d  107,  169 
Misc.  526— Cipperly  v.  Link,  237 
N.Y.S.  106,  135  Misc.  134. 

N.D. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  In  Baird 
v.  Ellison,  293  N.W.  794,  801,  70 

*    N.D.  261. 

Okl. — St.  Louis-San  Francisco  By. 
Co.  v.  Bayne,  40  P.2d  1104,  170  Okl 
542. 

Pa.— In  re  Galli's  Estate,  17  A.2d 
893,  340  Pa.  561 — In  re  Komara's 
Estate,  166  A.  677,  311  Pa.  135. 

Va.— Moore  v.  Smith,  15  S.E.2d  48,' 
177  Va.  621. 

Wash.— Morley  v.  Morley,  230  P.  645, 
131  Wash.  540. 

33  C.J.  p  1080  BOte  96. 

53.  Gal.— Baker  v.   O'Riordan,   4   P. 
232,  65  Cal.  368. 

Minn. — Bardwell  v.  Collins,  46  N.W. 
315,  44  Minn.  97,  20  Am.S.R.  547, 
9  L.R.A.  152. 

33  C.J.  p  1079  note  93. 

Process   or  notice   as   essential  ele- 
ment of  due  process  of  law  see 
Constitutional  Law  5  619. 
Begardless  of  statutory  provision 

with  respect  to  issuance  and  service 


of  process,   no  judgment,   order,   or 
.decree   is   valid   or   binding   on   the 
party   who    has    no    notice   of   pro- 
ceeding   against    him,    since    court 
must  have  jurisdiction  of  tlie  person 
as  well  as  of  the  subject  matter  and 
legislature   is  without  power  under 
constitution  to  dispense  with  notice 
either  actual  or  constructive. — Mad- 
do*  v.  Bush,  4   So.2d  302,  191  Miss. 
748— Jack  v.  Thompson,  41  Miss.  49'. 
54.    U.S. — Pen-Ken   Gas  &  Oil  Cor- 
poration v.  Warfield  Natural  Gas 
Co.,   C.C.A.Ky.,   137  F.2d   871,  car-, 
tiorari  denied  64  S.Ct.  431,  320  U. 
S.  800,  88  L.Ed.  483,  rehearing  de- 
nied 64  S.Ct.  634,  321  U.S.  803,  88 
L.EdL    1089 — Mason    v.    Royal    In- 
demnity  Co.,    D.CGa.,    35    F.Supp. 
477,  affirmed,  C.C.A.,  123  F.2d  335. 
Ala. — Standard     Cooperage     Co.     v. 
Grant,  117   So.  31,   217  Ala.  667— 
Farmers'  Union  Warehouse  Co.  v. 
Burnett  Bros.,  116  So.  810,  22  Ala. 
App.     524,     certlorari    denied    118 
So.  286,  218  Ala.  165. 
Ariz. — Lore  v.  Citizens  Bank  of  Win- 
slow,   75  R2d  371,  51  Ariz.  191. 
Cal. — Balaam  v.  Perazzo,  295  P.  330, 
221  Cal.  375— Gray  v.  Hall,  265  P. 
246,    203   Cal.    306— In   re   Ivory's 
Estate,  98  P.2d  761,  37  Oal.App.2d 
22— Jones  v.  Noble,  39  P.2d  486,  8 
Cal.App.2d  316. 
D.C.— Wise  v.  Herzog.  114  F.2d  486, 

72  APP.D.C.  335. 

Gtau — TOnn  v.  Armour  &  Co.,  193  S. 
R  447,  184  Ga.  769— Henry  &  Co. 
v.  Johnson,  173  S.E.  659,  178  Ga. 
641— Williams  v.  Batten,  119  S.E. 
709,  156  Ga.  620— Cherry  v.  Mo- 
Cutchen,  23  S.E.2d  587,  68  Ga. 
App.  682. 
Hawaii. — Kim  Poo  Kum  v.  Sugi- 

yama,  33  Hawaii  545. 
111. — Schuster  v.  Eisner,  250  IlLApp. 

192. 

Ind. — Montgomery  v.  Marks,  46  N.E. 
2d  912,  221  Ind.  223—Celiha  Mut 
Casualty  Co.  v.  Bpldridge,  12  N.E. 
2d  258,  213  Ind.  198. 
Iowa.— Woodmen  Accident  Co.  v. 
District  Court  in  and  for  Marshall 
County,  260  N.TIf.  713,  219  Iowa 
1326,  9£  A.L.R.  1431— Bes  Mofaes 
Coal  &  Coke  Co.  v.  Marks  Inv.  Co., 
195  N.W.  597,  197  Iowa  589,  opin-  , 

52 


ion  modified  on  rehearing  197  N. 
W.  628,  187  Iowa  589. 

Ky.— Gayle  v.  Gayle,  192  S.W.2d  821 
— Parrish  v.  Ferriell,  186  S.W.2d 
625,  299  Ky.  676— Jones  v.  Fuller, 
134  S.W.Sd  240,  280  Ky.  671— 
Gardner  v.  Lincoln  Bank  &  Trust 
Co.,  64  S.W.2d  497,  251  Ky.  109 
—Ely  v.  U.  S.  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  49 
S.W.2d  1021,  243  Ky.  725— Rex 
Red  Ash  Coal  Co.  v.  Powers,  290 
S.W.  1061,  218  Ky.  93— Farmers' 
Bank  of  Salvisa  v.  Riley,  272  S.W. 
9,  209  Ky.  54. 

La.— In  re  Webster's  Tutorship,  177 
So.  688,  188  La.  623— Lacour  Plan- 
tation Co,  v.  Jewell,  173  So.  761, 
186  La.  1055— Logwood  v.  Log- 
wood, 168  So.  310,  185  La.  1— No- 

.  Ian  v.  Schultze,  126  So.  513,  169 
La.  1022— Gahn  v.  Brown,  107  So. 
576,  160  La.  790— Nicol  v.  Jacoby, 
103  So.  33,  157  La.  757— Smith  v. 
Crescent  Chevrolet  Co.,  App.,  1  So. 
2d  421 — Key  v.  Jones,  App.,  181  So. 
631— R.  P.  Ffcrnsworth  &  Co.  v. 
Estrade,  Cotton  &  Fricke,  App., 
166  So.  676— McClelland  v.  District 
Household  of  Ruth,  App.,  151  So. 
246 — Richardson  v.  Trustees'  Loan 
&  Guaranty  Co.,  132  So.  387,  15  La. 
App.  645 — Spillman  v.  Texas  &*P. 
Ry.  Co.,  120  So.  905,  10  LfcuApp. 
379. 

Md. — Piedmont-Mt   Airy  Guano   Co. 

of  Baltimore  y.  Merritt,  140  A.  62, 

154  Md.  226. 
Mich.— Hafner  T.  A.  J.  Stuart  Land 

Co.,   224   N.W.   630,   246  Mich.   465. 
Minn. — Beede  v.  Nldes  Finance  Cor- 
poration, 296  N.W.  413,  209  Minn. 

354.' 
Miss. — Eastman     Gardiner     Lumber 

Co.  v.  Carr,  166  So.  401,  175  Miss. 

36 — Bank  of  Richton  v.  Jones,  121 

So.  823,  153  Miss.  796. 
Mo. — State  eat  rel.  Keller  r.  Porter- 
field,  App.,  283  S.W.  59. 
Mont— Novack   v.    Pericich,    300    P. 

240,   90   Mont   91-r-Holt  v.  Sather, 

264  P.  108,  81  Mont  442. 
K.M. — Bourgeious  v.  Santa  Fe  Trail 

Stages,   95  P.2d  284,  43  N.M.  453. 
N.Y.— Friedman  v.  Blatt,  27  N.Y.S.2d 

102,  176*Misc.  401— Rochester  Sav. 

Bank  v.  Monroe  County,   8  N.T.S. 

2d    107,    169    Misc.    526— Baumaa 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  23 


otherwise  waives  service  of  process,55  or  authorizes 
its  acceptance;56  and  in  some  states  this  rule  ob- 
tains by  statutory  provision.57  However,  the  prin- 
ciple that  a  judgment  obtained  without  service  of 
process  or  voluntary  appearance  is  void  for  lack  of 
the  court's  jurisdiction  does  not  apply  to  a  deci- 
sion on  a  collateral  question,  in  a  case  where  the 
parties  are  before  the  court  ;58  and  a  failure  to  give 
notice"  to  a  party  who  has  no  concern  or  interest  in 
the  question  decided  does  not  affect  the  validity  of 
the  judgment.59  A  judgment  which  merely  deter- 


mines rights  may  be  conclusive  without  the  service 
of  any  process  for  its  enforcement.60 

After  amended,  supplefnental,  or  cross  pleading. 
A  judgment  is  void  where  it  is  rendered  without  the 
service  of  process,  waiver,  or  entry  of  appearance, 
on  an  amended  complaint  or  petition,  which  changes 
the  cause  of  action,61  or  on  an  amended  or  supple- 
mental pleading  filed  by  defendant,62  or  on  a  plea 
of  intervention.63  Likewise,  where  a  new  or  ad- 
ditional process  is  required  when  a  cross  pleading 
is  filed,  a  judgment  rendered  on  such  pleading 


Rubber  Co.  v.  Karl  Light  &  Sons,  • 
244  N.T.S.  448,  137  Misc.  258. 

N.C.— Powell  v.  Turpin,  29  S.E.2d 
26,  224  N.C.  67— City  of  Monroe 
v.  Niven,  20  S.E.2d  311,  221  N.C. 
362— Hood  v.  Holding,  171  S.E. 
633.  205  N.C.  451— Crocker  v. 
Van-n,  135  S.E.  127,  192  N.C.  422 
— Clark  v.  Carolina  Homes,  128  S. 
E.  20,  189  N.C.  703. 

N.D. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in.  Baird 
v.  Ellison,  293  N.W.  794,  801,  70 
N.D.  261— Gallagher  v.  National 
Nonpartisan  League,  205  N.W.  674, 
53  N.D.  238. 

Okl. — American  Exchange  Corpora- 
tion v.  Lowry,  63  P.2d  71,  178  Okl. 
433 — St.  Louis-San  Francisco  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Bayne,  40  P.2d  1104,  170  Okl. 
542— Chicago,  R.  L  &  P.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Excise  Board  of  Oklahoma 
County,  33  P.2d  1081,  168  Okl.  428 
— Protest  of  Chicago.  R.  I.  &  P. 
Ry.  Co.,  2  P.2d  935,  151  Okl.  129 
— Noel  v.  Edwards,  260  P.  58,  127 
Okl.  163— Oklahoma  City  v.  Me- 
Williams,  236  P.  417,  108  Okl.  268 
— Abraham  v.  Homer,  226  P.  45, 
102  Okl.  12. 

Pa. — In  re  Honiara's  Estate,  166  A. 
577,  311  Pa,  135— In  re  Gallagher's 
Estate,  167  A.  476,  109  Pa. Super. 
304. 

R.I. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Sahagian 
v.  Sahagian,  137  A.  221,  222,  48 
R.L  267. 

Tex. — Pure  Oil  Co.  v.  Reece,  78  S. 
W.2d  932,  124  Tex.  476— State 
Mortg.  Corporation  v.  Tray  lor,  36 
S.W.2d  440.  120  Tex  148— Levy  v. 
Roper,  256  S.W.  251,  113  Tex.  356 
— Burrage  v.  Hunt,  Civ.App.,  147 
S.W.2d  532,  error  dismissed,  judg- 
ment correct — Freeman  v.  B.  F. 
Goodrich  Rubber  Co.,  Civ.App.,  127 
S.W.2d  476,  error  dismissed  by 
agreement— Olton  State  Bank  v. 
Howell,  Civ.App.,  105  S.W.2d  287 
— Goodman  v.  Mayer,  Civ.App., 
105  S.W.2d  281,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  128  S.W.2d  1156,  133  Tex. 
319 — Coker  v.  Logan,  Civ.App.,  101 
S.W.2d  284 — Corpus  Juris  cited  in 
Associated  Indemnity  Corporation 
v.  Baker,  Civ.App.,  76  S.W.2d  153, 
158 — Wilkinson  v.  Owens,  Civ. 
App.,'  72  S.W.2d  330— Christie  v. 
Hudspeth  County  Conservation 
and  Reclamation  Dist.  No.  1,  Civ. 


App.,  64  S.W.2d  978— Texas  Bank 
&  Trust  Co.  v.  Bankers'  Life  Co., 
Civ.App.,  43  S.W.2d  631,  error  re- 
fused— Lipscomb  v.  Japhet,  Civ. 
App.,  18  S.W.2d  786— Belt  v.  Mc- 
Gehee,  Civ.App.,  9  S.W.Sd  407— 
Adamson  v.  Collins,  Civ.App.,  286 
S.W.  598— Cook  v.  Liberty  Pipe 
Line  Co.,  Civ.App.,  281  S.W.  221 
— Watson  Co.,  Builders,  v.  Blee- 
ker,  Civ.App.,  269  S.W.  147. 
Utah. — Parry  v.  Bonneville  Irr. 

Dist.,  235  P.  751,  71  Utah  202. 
Va. — Preston  v.  Legard,  168  S.E.  445, 
160    Va.    364 — Johnson    v.    Burson, 
129  S.E.  251,  143  Va.  57. 
Wash. — State  v.  Fishing  Appliances, 

16    P.2d   822,   170  Wash.   426. 
W.Va. — Hayhurst  v.  J.  Kenny  Trans- 
fer  Co.,    158    S.E.    506,    110   W.Va. 
395 — Robertson     Grocery     Co.     v. 
Kinser,  116  S.E.  141,  93  W.Va.  172. 
33  C.J.  p  1079  note  94—34  C.J.  p  533 
notes  38,  39—15  C.J.  p  798  note  64. 
Default    Judgment    without    process 

see  infra  §  191. 
Judgment     by     confession     without 

process  see  infra  §  151. 
Service    of   process    as    essential    to 

Jurisdiction  see  Courts  §  83. 
Service  of  process  on  Joint  defend- 
ants see  infra  $  33. 
As  otherwise  stated,  unless  a  de- 
fendant has  been  brought  into  court 
in  some  way  sanctioned  by  law,  or 
has  made  a  voluntary  appearance 
in  person  or  by  attorney,  a  Judgment 
rendered  against  him  is  void  for 
want  of  Jurisdiction. — Casey  v.  Bar- 
ker, 14  S.E.2*  429,  219  N.C.  465— 
Groce  v.  Groce,  199  S.E.  388,  214 
N.C.  398 — Denton  v.  Vassiliades,  193 
S.E.  737,  212  N.C.  513— Downing  v. 
White,  188  S.E.  815,  211  N.C.  40. 

For  judicial  action  to  affect  vested 
rights,  it  must  be  based  on  notice  or 
process  whereby  interested  parties 
are  brought  within  court's  Jurisdic- 
tion.— Parry  v.  Bonneville  Irr.  Dist., 
263  P.  751,  71  Utah  202. 
55.  Ga.— Henry  &  Co.  v.  Johnson, 

173  S.E.  659,  178  Ga.  541. 
Hawaii.— Kim    Poo    Kum    v.     Sugi- 

yama,  33  Hawaii  545. 
La. — Key  v.  Jones,  App.,  181  So.  631. 
Okl.— Protest    of    Chicago,    R.    I.    & 
P.   Ry.   Co.,    2    P.2d    935,    151   Okl. 
129. 

53, 


W.Va, — Hayhurst  v.  J.  Kenny  Trans- 
fer Co.,  158  S.E.  606,  110  W.Va. 
395 — Robertson  Grocery  Co.  v. 
Kinser,  116  S.E.  141,  93  W.Va.  172. 

34  C.J.  p  5*33  note  40. 

56.  W.Va. — Hayhurst    v.    J.    Kenny 
Transfer  Co.,  158  S.E.  506,  110  W. 
Va.  395. 

57.  Ark. — Arkansas    State    Highway 
Commission    v.    Hammock,    148    S. 
W.2d  324,  201  Ark.  927. 

58-  Cal.— Gray  v.  Hall,  265  P.  246, 
20$  Cal.  306. 

59.  Ohio. — Cunningham  v.  Bessemer 
Trust  Co.,   178   N.E.    217,    39    Ohio 
App.  535. 

60.  N.H.— Faulkner      v.       City      of 
Keene,   155   A.   195.    85   N.H.   147— 
Walker    v.    Walker,    63    N.H.    321, 
56  Am.R.  514. 

Declaratory  Judgments  generally  see 
Actions  §  18  d  (14)  (g). 

61.  Ohio. — Ohio  Electric  Ry.  Co.  v. 
U.  S.  Express  Co.,  137  N.E.  1,  105 
Ohio  St.  331. 

Tex. — Nuckles  v.  J.  M.  Radford  Gro- 
cery Co.,   Civ.App...   72   S.W.2d   652. 
Rule  not  applicable  where  amend- 
ed pleading  states  no  new  cause  of 
action. 
Okl.— City  of  Tulsa  v.  Peacock,  74  P. 

2d  359,  181  Okl.  383. 
Tex. — Nathan  v.  Brashear,  Civ.App., 
105    S.W.2d    328— Henson   v.   C.  C. 
Slaughter  Co.,   Civ.App.,    206    S.W. 
375. 
33  C.J.  p  1081  note  97  [d]. 

62.  Tex— Davis    v.    Wichita    State 
Bank   &   Trust   Co.,    Civ.App.,    286 
S.W.  584. 

Flea  for  affirmative  relief 

Where  defendant  files  pleading 
asking  for  affirmative  relief  after 
plaintiff  has  taken  nonsuit,  citation 
is  necessary  to  sustain  Judgment 
for  him.— Davis  v.  Wichita  State 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  Tex.Civ.App.,  286 
S.W.  584. 
judgment  improper 

Entry  of  Judgment  after  overrul- 
ing plea  of  privilege,  without  notice 
or  hearing  of  controverting  plea,  Is 
improper. — Galbraith  v.  Bishop,  Tex 
Com.App.,  287  S.W.  1087. 

63.  Tex.— State   v.   Bagby's    Estate, 
_Civ.App.,  ,126    S.W.2d    687. 


§  24 


against  the  original  plaintiff,64  or  a  codefendant,65 
without  the  service  of  process  on,  or  appearance  or 
waiver  by,  such  plaintiff  or  defendant,  is  void,  as 
where  the  cross  petition  is  filed  after  the  expiration 
of  the  time  for  such  defendant  to  plead.66 

§  24.    Sufficiency 

a.  In  general 

b.  Personal  service 

c.  Substituted  and  constructive  service; 

publication 

d.  Extraterritorial  service 

e.  Nonresidents 

f .  Attachment  and  garnishment 


g.  Defective  process 
h.  Defective  service 

a.  In  General 

Formal  process  or  notice  served  In  the  manner  au- 
thorized or  required  by  law  is  essential  to  support  a 
judgment. 

Formal  process  or  notice  served  in  the  manner 
authorized  or  required  by  law  is  essential  to  sup- 
port a  judgment;67  mere  informal  knowledge  of 
the  pendency  of  the  action  is  not  sufficient68  Thus 
a  judgment  is  a  mere  nullity  where  service  is  made 
on  a  third  person,  who  is  not  authorized  to  accept 
service,  instead  of  on  the  actual  defendant,69  not- 


Wbere  intervention  was  filed  after 
service  of  citation  had  been  had  on 
defendants  and  intervener  did  not 
cause  citation  to  issue  on  Its  cause 
of  action  and  defendants  made  no 
appearance,  trial  court  was  without 
Jurisdiction  to  enter  judgment  for 
intervener  against  defendants.— 
State  v.  Bagby's  Estate,  Tex.  Civ. 
App.,  126  S.W.2d  687. 

64.  Tex. — Early  v.  Cornelius,   39   S. 
W.2d   6,   120   Tex,   335— Holmes  v. 
Klein,    Civ.App.f    59    S.W.2d    171— 
National    Stock   Tards   Nat    Bank 
v.   Valentine,    Civ. App.,    39    S.W.2d 
907 — Southern    Equipment    Co.    v. 
Hallman  Electric  Co.,  Civ. App.,  10 
S.W.2d  261 — Scarborough  v.  Brad- 
ley,  Civ.App.,    256    S.W.    349— Jar- 
ratt  v.  McCarty,   Civ.App,,   209   S. 
W.  712. 

Necessity  of  process  after  filing 
cross  pleading  see  the  C.J.S.  title 
Process  §  4,  also  50  C.J.  p  448 
note  48-p  449  note  60. 

65.  CaL— Balaam  v.  Perazzo,  295  P, 
330,  221  CaL  375. 

Ky. — Carter  v.  Capshaw,  60  S.W.2d 
959,  249  Ky.  483— Lorton  v.  Ash- 
brook,  295  S.W.  1027,  220  Ky.  830. 

Tex. — Holmes  v.  Klein,  Civ. App.,  59 
S.W.2d  171,  error  dismissed — Flagg 
v.  Matthews,  Civ.App.,  287  S.W. 
299. 

Effect  of  appearance  generally  see 
infra  §  26. 

66.  Okl.— Blakeney   v.    Ashford,    81 
P.2d  309,   188   Okl.   213— Vinson  v. 
Oklahoma  City,    66   P.2d   933,   179 
Okl.    590-^Central    Nat.    Bank    of 
Okmulgee   v.    Sharp,    34    P.2d   241, 
168   Okl.   616 — O'Reilly   v.   Schuer- 
meyer,  9  P,2d  923,  156  Okl.  167— 
Wood  v.  Speakman,  5  P.2d.  121,  153 
Okl.   180 — Poster  v.   Comaway,  251 
P.  59,  122  Okl.  80. 

67.  U.S. — Rettig  Beverage  Co.  v,  IT. 
S..  C.C.A.Pa.,  13  F.2d  740. 

Ala. — Sovereign  .Camp,  W.  O.  W.,  v. 

Partridge,    127    So.    505,    221   Ala. 

75. 
Ark. — Gainsburg  v.  Dodge,  101  S.W. 

2d  178,  193  Ark.  473.     , 


Colo. — Younge    v.    Button,    61    P.2d 

1370,  99  Colo.  254. 
Fla.— McAllister  v.  McAllister,  3  So. 

2d  351.  147  Fla,  647. 
Ky. — Corpus   Taxis   cited   in   Ely  v. 

XI.  S.  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  49  S.W.2d 

1021,  1025,  243  Ky.  725. 
Mo. — In    re    Waters'    Estate,    App., 

153  S.W.2d  774. 
Neb.— Coffin  v.  Maitland,   20  N.W.2d 

310. 
N.J.— Hinners    v.    Banville,    168    A. 

618,  114  N.J.Eq.  348. 
N.T.— Universal  Credit  Co.  v.  Blind- 

erman,    288    N.T.S.    77,    159    Misc. 

802. 
N.D. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Balrd 

v.   Ellison,   293   N.W,    794,   801,    70 

N.D.  261. 
Okl.— State  v.  City  of  Tulsa,  5  P.2d 

744,   153   Okl.  262— Oklahoma  City 

v.  McWilliams,  236  P.  417,  108  Okl. 

268. 
Pa. — In  re  Murray's  Estate,  Super., 

45    A.2d    411 — Johnston  v.   Ameri- 
can    Casualty     Co.,     Com.Pl.,     23 

WestCo.  178. 
Tenn. — Hunter    v.    May,    25    S.W.2d 

580,  161  Tenn.  155. 
Tex. — Jenness    v.    First   Nat.    Bank, 

Civ.App.,  256  S.W.  634. 
33  C.J.  p  1081  note  97. 
Service    of    process    in    general   see 

the  C.J.S.  title  Process  §  25  et  sea, 

also  50  C.J.  p  467  note  86  et  sea. 

Formal  issuance  of  order  to  show 
cause  and  appropriate  service  there- 
of on  defendant  was  such  reasona- 
ble notice  of  pendency  of  suit  as  to 
bring  it  within  Jurisdiction  of  court 
and  bind  defendant  to  order  or  de- 
cree.— Doan  v.  OollinB-Doan  Co.,  194 
A.  254,  122  N.J.Eq.  399. 

'Corporation,  and  stockholders 

Where  court  had  jurisdiction  over 
subject  matter  of  suit  against  cor- 
poration, and  president  of  corpo- 
ration was  served  with  citation, 
stockholders  were  not  "necessary 
parties"  or  "proper  parties"  to  suit, 
and  hence  notice  of  suit  and  serv- 
ice on  them  was  not  reauired  for 
rendition  of  valid  judgment  against 
corporation  and  stockholders. — Cruse 

54 


v.    Mann,    Tex.Civ.App.,    74    S.W.2d 
545,  error  dismissed. 

68.  Cal.— Peabody  v.  Phelps,  9  CaL 
213. 

N.D. — Corpus  Jxtcis  quoted  la  Baird 
v.  Ellison,  293  N.W.  794,  801,  70 
N.D.  261. 

Ohio.— Haley  v.  Hanna,  112  N.E,  149, 
93  Ohio  St.  49. 

33  C.J.  p  1081  note  97. 

69.  Ky. — Missouri-Kansas  Pipe 
Line    Co.    v.    Hobgood,    51    S.W.2d 
920,  244  Ky,  570. 

La.— Waddill  v.  Payne,  23  La,Ann. 
773— Jones  v.  Jones,  23  La.Ann. 
304. 

N.T. — Building  Trades  Service  Bu- 
reau v.  S.  W.  Straus  Investing 
Corporation,  272  N.T.S.  73,  241 
App.Div.  869— Universal  Credit 
Co.  v.  Blinderman,  288  N.T.S.  77, 
159  Misc.  802. 

Wash. — Wheeler  v.  Moore,  36  P. 
1053,  10  Wash.  309. 

W.Va,— State  v.  A,  R.  Kelly  &  Co.* 
33  S.E.2d  230— Nicholas  Land  Co. 
v.  Crowder,  32  S.E.2d  563. 

33  C.J.  p  1081  note  98. 

Class  representative 

(1)  Conditions    under    which    de- 
fendants   may    be    bound    by    judg- 
ments in  "class  suits,"  and  in  other 
cases  in  which  doctrine   of  virtual 
representation  is  applied,  constitute 
exceptions    to    statutory    provisions 
making  service  of  process  a  condi- 
tion precedent  to  rendition  of  judg- 
ment.— Southern     Ornamental     Iron. 
Works  v.  Morrow,  Tcx.Civ.App.,  101 
S.W.2d  336. 

(2)  However,    the    equitable    doc- 
trine  of   class    representation    does 
not  permit  a  plaintiff  to   designate- 
certain    parties    as    representatives 
of    other    numerous    members    of   & 
voluntary  unincorporated  association 
in    order    to    obtain   personal    judg- 
ments as  to  members  not  properly- 
served  in  action  on  alleged  indebted- 
ness   of    the    association. — Webb    & 
Martin    v.    Anderson-McG-rift    Hard- 
ware Co.,  3  S.E.2d  882,  188  Ga,  291. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  24 


withstanding  defendant  had  knowledge  of  the  ac- 
tion and  the  attempted  service.70  The  service 
must  be  accomplished  by  a  method  which  gives  de- 
fendant actual  or  constructive  notice,71  and  is  rea- 
sonably calculated  to  afford  him  the  constitutional 
protection  of  due  process  of  law.72  It  must  apprise 
defendant  of  what  is  required  of  him  and  of  the 
consequences  which  may  follow  if  he  neglects  to  de- 
fend the  action.78 

b.  Personal  Service 
A  personal  Judgment  which  Is  rendered  without  serv- 


ice of  process  on,  or  legal  notice  to,  defendant  Is  void  In 
the  absence  of  a  voluntary  appearance  or  waiver. 

A  personal  judgment  rendered  against  a  defend- 
ant without  service  of  process  on  him,  or  other  suf- 
ficient legal  notice  to  him,  is  without  jurisdiction 
and  void,74  unless  he  has  appeared  voluntarily,  as 
discussed  infra  §  26,  or  otherwise  has  waived  per- 
sonal service,75  or  has  acknowledged  service,76  or 
has  authorized  its  acceptance  in  his  behalf.77  In  a 
proceeding  in  rem,  or  quasi  in  rem,  a  valid  per- 
sonal judgment  cannot  be  rendered  against  de- 
fendant without  personal  service  of  process  on  him, 
in  the  absence  of  his  voluntary  appearance.78 


70.  Ariz.— National     Metal     Co.     v. 
Greene  Consol.   Copper  Co.,  89   P. 
535,  11  Ariz.  108. 

33  C.J.  p  1081  note  98. 

71.  N.Y. — In  re  Renard's  Estate,  39 
N.Y.S.2d  968,   179  Misc.   885. 

Pa. — In  re  Komara's  Estate,  166  A. 

577,  811  Pa.  135. 
Constructive    service    generally    see 

infra  subdivision  c  of  this  section. 

72.  D.C.— Wise  v.  Herzog,  114  F.2d 
486,  72  App.D.C.  335. 

N.Y.— -Standish  v.  Standish,  40  N.Y. 
S.2d  538,  179  Misc.  564. 

73.  Cal.— Peabody  v.  Phelps,  9  Cal 
213. 

33  C.J.  p  1081  note  1. 

Process  and  service  sufficient  to 
support  default  Judgment  see  in- 
fra §  191. 

74.  U.-S. — Griffin  v.  Griffin,  App.D.C., 
66  S.Ct.  556,  rehearing  denied  66  8. 
Ct   975— In  re   Gayle,  C.C.A.Canal 
Zone,   136    F.2d   973,   petition   dis- 
missed 64  S.Ct   157,  320  U.S.   806, 
88  L.Ed.  487. 

.Ala. — Morrison  v.  Covington,  100  So. 

124.    211    Ala.    181— Corpus    Juris 

cited  in  Ex  parte  Whistler,  199  So. 

876,  878,  29  Ala.App.  583. 
Ariz.— Blair  v.   Blair,    62   P.2d   1321, 

48  Ariz.  501. 
Jowa, — Stier  v.  Iowa  State  Traveling 

Men's    Ass'n,    201    N.W.    328,    199 

Iowa  118,   59  A.L.R.  1384. 
;Kan. — Gibson  v.  Enright,  9  P.2d  971, 

135  Kan.  181. 
ZKy.— Hughes    v.    Hughes,    278    S.W. 

121,  211  Ky.  799. 
Mo.— Noell  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 

74  S.W.2d  7,  335  Mo.  687,  94  A.L.R. 

684,  followed  in  74  S.W.2d  14. 
:Mont.— Holt  v.  Sather,  264  P.  108,  81 

Mont  442. 
;N.J.— Baker    v.    Josephsota,    44    A.2d 

909,   137  N.J.Eq.  377,   reversed  on 

other  grounds  46  A.2d  904,  138  N. 

J.BQ.  107. 
:.N.M. — State  ex  rel.  Truitt  v.  District 

Court  of  Ninth  Judicial  Dist,  Cur- 
ry County,    96    P.2d  710.   44   N.M, 

16,  126  A.L.R.  651. 
~N.Y. — In  re  Galvin's  Estate,  274  N 

Y.S.  846,  153  Misc.  11. 
:N.C.— Dunn  v.  Wilson,  187  &E,  802 

210  N.C.  493. 


sr.D. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Ellison 
v.  Baird,  293  N.W.  793,  794,  70  N. 
D.  226— Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Dar- 
ling &  Co.  v.  Burchard,  284  N.W. 
856,  862,  69  N.D.  212. 

Ohio.— In  re  Blue's  Estate,  32  N.R2d 
499,  67  Ohio  App.  37. 

Okl.— Skipper  v.  Baer,  277  P.  930, 
136  Okl.  286. 

Pa.— Potter  v.  Potter,  Pa.,  42  Dist 
&  Co.  42. 

Tenn. — Dickson  v.  Simpson,  113  S. 
W.2d  1190,  172  Tenn,  680,  116  A.L. 
R.  380. 

Va,— Lockard  v.  Whitenack,  144  S*E. 
606,  151  Va,  143. 

W.Va. — Hayhurst  v.  X  Kenny  Trans- 
fer Co.,  158  S.E.  506,  110  W.Va, 
395. 

Wis.— Saric  v.  Brlos,  19  N.W.2d  903, 
247  Wis.  400. 

33  C.J.  p  1082  note  4 — 34  C.J.  p  533 
note  39. 

Service  within  state  see  infra  subdi- 
vision d  of  this  section. 

What  constitutes  personal  service 
see  the  C.J.S.  title  Process  §§  25- 
42,  also  50  C.J.  p  468  <note  9-p  490 
note  62. 

"Jurisdiction,  of  the  person"  is  ob- 
tained, so  that  a  valid  judgment  may 
be  rendered,  when  prescribed  notice 
has  been  given  to  litigant  proceed- 
ed against  to  enable  him  to  appear 
and  make  defense. — Wagner  v.  Peo- 
ples Building  &  Loan  Ass'n,  167  S. 
W.2d  825,  292  Ky.  691. 

It  is  not  within  the  power  of  any 
tribunal  to  make  a  binding  adjudica- 
tion of  the  rights  in  personam  of 
parties  not  brought  before  it  by  due 
process  of  law. — National  Licorice 
Co.  v.  National  Labor  Relations 
Board,  60  S.Ct  569,  309  U.S.  350, 
84  L.Ed.  799. 

Actions  affecting  title  to  property 
within  court's  jurisdiction,  but  not 
seized  or  otherwise  brought  under 
court's  direct  control  for  disposi- 
tion, and  involved  only  incidentally 
because  of  effect  on  its  title  of  de- 
cree or  judgment  entered,  are  usual- 
ly held  to  be  in  personam,  so  as  to 
require  personal  service  of  process 
on  defendants.— State  ex  rel.  Truitt 
v.  District  Court  of  Ninth  Judicial 

' 


Dist,  Curry  County,  96  P.2d  710,  44 

.  16,  126  A.L.R.  651. 
Personal  judgment  on  cross  petition 

held  void 
Ky.— Capper  v.  Short,  11  S.W.2d  717, 

226  Ky.  689. 

75.  N.T.— In  re  Galvin's  Estate,  274 
N.Y.S.  846,  153  Misc.  11.  . 

W.Va.— Hayhurst  v.  J.  Kenny  Trans- 
fer Co.,  158  S.E.  506,  110  W.Va. 
395. 

76.  N.J.— Fidelity   Union  Trust  Co. 
v.  Union  Cemetery  Ass'-n,  40  A.2d 
205,    136    N.J.Eq.    15,    affirmed    45 
A.2d   670,   137  N.J.Ea.   455,  and  45 
A.2d  698,   137  N.J.EQ.   456. 
Acknowledgment   of   service  after 

appearance  term  has  been  held  too 
late  to  preserve  suit  as  pending  ac- 
tion, and  judgment  rendered  in  suc- 
ceeding term  without  other  process 
was  void.— Bolton  v.  Keys,  144  S.B. 
406,  38  Ga.App.  573. 

77.  W.Va.— Hayhurst    v.    J.    Kenny 
Transfer  Co.,  158  S.E.  506.  110  W. 
Va.  395. 

78.  Ga,— Corpus     Juris     quoted    la 
Webb   &   Martin  v.   Anderson-Mc- 
Griff  Hardware  Co.,   3  S.E.2d  882, 
885,  188  Ga,  291. 

111. — Barnett  v.  Cook  County,  26 
N.E.2d  862,  373  111.  516 — Griffin  v. 
Cook  County,  16  N.E.2d  906,  369 
111.  380,  118  A.L.R.  1157. 

Kan. — Union  Central  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Irrigation  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  78  P. 
2d  72!  146  Kan.  550. 

Ky. — Kitchen  v.  New  York  Trust 
Co.,  168  «S.W.2d  5,  292  Ky.  706 — 
Bond  v.  Wheeler,  247  S.W.  708,  197 
Ky.  437. 

N.M.— State  ex  rel.  Truitt  v.  Dis- 
trict Court  of  Ninth  Judicial  Dist, 
Curry  County,  96  P.2d  710,  44  N.M. 
16,  126  A.L.R.  651. 

N.T.— In  re  Galvin's  Estate,  274  N. 
T.S.  846,  153  Misc.  11. 

Tenn. — Commerce  Union  Bank  v. 
Sharber,  100  S.W.2d  243,  20  Tenn. 
App.  451. 

33  C.J.  p  1084  note  15. 

Extent  of  jurisdiction  of  court  In 
absence  .  of  personal  service  of 
process  see  Courts  §  83  b  (1). 

Judgment  in  rem  see  infra  I  908; 


§  24 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.& 


Substituted  and  Constructive  Service;  Pub- 
lication 


Ordinarily  no  valid  personal  Judgment  may  be  ren- 
dered against  a  defendant  on  whom  the  service  of  proc- 
ess was  merely  constructive  or  by  publication  and  who 
did  not  appear. 

It  has  been  held  that  a  state  has  the  right  to  pre- 
scribe the  mode  of  serving  the  process  of  its  own 
courts  on  its  own  resident  citizens,  and  that  a  judg- 
ment is  valid,  at  least  until  set  aside  in  a  direct 
proceeding  for  that  purpose,  when  based  on  such 
a  form  of  citation  as  the  law  authorizes,  although 
without  actual  notice  to  defendant79  However,  a 
personal  judgment  on  merely  constructive  service  is 
not  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit  in  the  courts  of 
another  state,  under  the  constitutional  provision  in 
that  regard,80  and  the  weight  of  authority  is  to  the 
effect  that  no  valid  personal  judgment  may  be  ren- 


79.  U.S. — Santiago  v.  Nogueras, 
Puerto  Rico,  29  S.Ct  608,  214  TJ.S. 
260,  58  L.Ed.  989. 

Ga. — Benton  v.  Maddox,  192  S.E.  316, 
56  Ga.App.  132. 

HI. — Barnett  v.  Cook  County,  26  N.E. 
2d  862,  373  III.  516— Griffln  v.  Cook 
County,  16  N.E.2d  906,  869  111.  380, 
118  A.L.R.  1167. 

Ind.— Pattison  v.  Grant  Trust  &  Sav- 
ings Co.,  144  N.B.  26,  195  Ind.  313. 

Me.— Jordan  v.  McKay,  165  A.  902, 
132  Me.  55. 

Minn.— Murray  v.  Murray,  198  N.W. 
307,  159  Minn.  111. 

Mont.— Holt  v.  gather,  264  P.  108, 
81  Mont.  442. 

N.Y.— Continental  Nat.  Bank  of  Bos- 
ton v.  Thurber.  26  N.Y.S.  956,  74 
Hun  632,  affirmed  Continental  Nat 
Bank  of  Boston  v.  United  States 
Book  Co.,  37  N.E.  828,  143  N.Y. 
648 — In  re  Auto  Mut.  Indemnity 
Co.,  14  N.Y.S.2d  601. 

33  C.J.  p  1083  note  9. 

Substituted  service  see  the  C.J.S. 
title  Process  §§  43-53,  also  50  C. 
J.  p  490  note  64-p  496  note  99. 

Judgment  rendered  on  substituted 
or  constructive  service  is  as  con- 
clusive on  residents  of  state  not 
residents  of  county  of  suit  as  one 
rendered  on  personal  service. — Wer- 
ner v.  W.  H.  Shons  Co.,  173  N.E.  486, 
341  HI.  478* 

Compliance  with  statute 

Where  jurisdiction  is  obtained  by 
a  prescribed  form  of  constructive 
notice,  the  statutory  conditions  on 
which  the  service  depends  must  be 
strictly  construed,  and  unless  stat- 
ute has  been  complied  with  court 
has  no  jurisdiction  to  render  judg- 
ment— Pinon  v.  Pollard,  158  P.2d 
254.  69  Oal.App.2d  129. 

Service  held  insufficient  to  support 

judgment 

(1)  On  tenant  of  apartment  house 
.  by  leaving  copy  of  papers  in  outer 


hall.-<!lover  v.    Urban,    142  A.   389, 
108  Conn.  13. 

(2)  Leaving-  process  at  apartment 
from  which  defendant  had  previous- 
ly moved  to  another  state. — Rogan 
v.  Liberty  Mut  Ins.  Co.,  25  N.E.2d 
188,  305  Mass.  186. 

80.  Ga. — Corpus    Juris     quoted    in 
Webb   &   Martin  v.   Anderson-Mc- 
Griff  Hardware  Co.,  3   S.E.2d  882, 
885,  188  Ga,  291. 

33  C.J.  p  1083  note  10. 

81.  U.'S. — Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  Or.,   95 
U.S.   714,    24  L.Ed.   565— Barter  v. 
Continental    Casualty    Co.,    C.C.A. 
Mo.,  48  F.2d  467,  appeal  dismissed 
52   S.Ct.   2.  284   U.S.  578,   76  L.Ed, 
502. 

Cal.— Williams  v.  Williams,  213  P. 
508,  60  Cal.App.  675. 

Ga. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Webb  & 
Martin  v.  Anderson-McGrin?  Hard- 
ware Co.,  3  S.E.2d  882,  885,  188  Ga. 
291— B.  Miflin  Hood  Brick  Co.  v. 
Mangham,  131  S.E.  172,  161  Ga. 
457 — Sweet  v.  Awtry,  30  S.B.2d 
799,  71  Ga.App.  341. 

Iowa. — Security  Sav.  Bank  v.  Cimp- 
rich,  203  N.W.  24,  199  Iowa  1061. 

Ky. — Bond  v.  Wheeler,  247  S.W.  708, 
197  Ky.  437. 

La.— Liles  v.  Barnhart,  93  So.  490, 
152  La.  419. 

Md. — Ortman  v.  Coane,  31  A.2d  320, 
181  Md.  596,  145  A.L.R.  1388. 

N.J.— Reichert  v.  United  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters  and  Joiners  of 
America,  183  A.  728,  14  N.J.Misc. 
106. 

N.M.-7-State  ex  rel.  Truitt  v.  Dis- 
trict Court  of  Ntoth  Judicial  Dist., 
Curry  County,  96  P.2d  710,  44 
N.M.  16,  126  A.L.R.  651. 

N.Y.— Matthews  v.  Matthews,  219  N. 
Y.S.  333,  128  Misc.  309. 

Utah.— Ricks  v.  Wade,. 93  P.2d  479, 
97  Utah  402. 

Wyo. — Kimbel  v.  Osborn,  156  (P.2d 
279. 

33  C.J.  p  1083  note  11. 

56 


dered  against  a  defendant  on  whom  the  service  of 
process  was  merely  constructive  and  who  did  not 
appear.81 

d.  Extraterritorial  Service 

Service  of  process  on  a  nonresident  beyond  the  ter- 
ritorial Jurisdiction  of  the  court  from  which  the  process 
issued  will  not  support  a  personal  Judgment  against  the 
nonresident.  It  has  also  been  held  that  extraterritorial 
service  on  a  resident  will  not  support  a  personal  Judg- 
ment against  him. 

It  is  a  fundamental  principle  that  a  judgment  af- 
fecting personal  rights  must  be  founded  on  service 
of  process,  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  on  the  party  to  be  affected.82  Accordingly,  a 
valid  personal  judgment  cannot  be  rendered  against 
a  nonresident  based  on  process  served  on  him  be- 
yond the  limits  of  the  state  from  whose  courts  the 
process  issued,83  and  such  a  judgment  cannot  be 

As  to  nonresidents  see  infra  subdi- 
vision e  of  this  section. 
Under    a    statute    providing-    for 
service    by   publication   on    nonresi- 
dents only,  a  Judgment  on  such  serv- 
ice against  a  resident  is  void. — Main 
v.  Kick,  161  N.W.  711,  180  Iowa  50— 
Oziah  v.  Howard,  128  N.W.  864,  140 
Iowa  199. 

82.  U.'S.— Sugg    v.    Hendrix,    C.CLA. 
Miss.,  142  F.2d  740— De  Bouchel  v. 
Candler,   D.C.Ga.,   296   F.   482,   485. 

Ariz.— Blair  v,   Blair,   62    P.2d   1321, 

48  Ariz.  501. 
Ky. — Kitchen    v.    New    York    Trust 

Co.,  1C8  S.W.2d  5.  202  Ky.  706. 
Mo. — Noell  v.  Missouri   Pac.  R.  Co., 

74  S.W.2d  7,  335  Mo.  687,  94  A.L.R. 

684,  followed  in  74  S.W.2d  14. 

83.  TJ.-S. — Oxley  v.  Sweetland,  CCA* 
W.Va.,    96    P.2d    53 — Campbell    V. 
City   of  Hickman,   D.C.Ky.,    45    V. 
Supp.  517. 

Ark.— Miller  v.  Maryland  Casualty 
Co.,  180  S.W.2d  581,  207  Ark.  812. 

Del. — Webb  Packing  Co.  v.  Harmon, 
196  A.  158,  9  W.W.Harr.  22. 

Fla.— Newton  v.  Bryan,  194  So.  282, 
142  Fla.  14. 

111.— Wickiser  v.  Powers,  57  N.E.2d 
522,  324  IlLApp.  130. 

Iowa. — 'Sloan-Pierce  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Gardiner,  8  N.W.2d  531,  281  Iowa 
1194— Fisher  &  Van  Gilder  v.  First 
Trust  Joint-Stock  Land  Bank  of 
Chicago,  231  N.W.  671.  210  Iowa 
531,  69  A.L.R.  1340. 

La. — Evans  v.  Evans,  116  So.  831. 
166  La.  145. 

Md. — Ortman  v.  Coane,  $1  A.2d  320,. 
181-  Md.  596,  145  A.L.R.  1388. 

N.Y. — Bank  of  New  Tork  v.  Leg- 
get,  46  N.Y.S.2d  465,  267  App. 
E>iv.  875,  appeal  denied  50  N.E.2* 
173,  268  App.Div.  779,  appeal  dis- 
missed 56  N.B.2d  115,  29*  N.Y. 
702,  appeal  dismissed  57  N.&2& 
838,  293  N.Y.  759— Maguire  v.. 
Blodgett,  41  N.Y.S.2d  130,  265 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  24 


authorized  constitutionally  even  by  express  stat- 
ute.84 However,  such  service  may  be  sufficient  to 
support  a  judgment  in  rem,  or  quasi  in  rem,  as  dis- 
cussed infra  §§  908,  911.  Although  there  is  author- 
ity to  the  contrary,85  it  has  been  held  that  extra- 
territorial service  on  a  resident  of  the  state  will  not 
support  a  personal  judgment,86  and  that,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  statute,  a  personal  judgment  is  void,  even 
where  it  is  based  on  the  service  of  process  within 
the  state,  but  beyond  the  limits  of  the  county  or  dis- 
trict, which  comprise  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of 
the  court.*7 


4.  Nonresidents 

A  vatid  personal  Judgment  may  be  rendered  against 
a  nonresident  only  where  he  is  brought  within  the  Juris- 
diction of  the  court  by  the  service  of  process  or  notice 
on  him  within  its  territorial  Jurisdiction,  or  by  his  vol- 
untarily appearing  and  submitting  to  Its  Jurisdiction. 
Mere  constructive  or  substituted  service  Is  not  sufficient. 

A  valid  persona;!  judgment  may  be  rendered  against 
a  nonresident  only  where  he  has  been  brought  with- 
in the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  by  the  service  of 
process  or  notice  made  on  him  within  its  territorial 
jurisdiction,88  or  by  such  service  on  some  one  au- 


Div.  $70,  affirmed  50  N.E.24  800, 
290  N.T.  907— Heilbrun  v.  Kellogg, 
1  N.T.S.2d  193,  253  App.Div.  753, 
motion  denied  16  N,E.2d  104,  278 
N.Y.  564,  motion  granted  18  N.B.2d 
312,  279  N.T.  683,  affirmed  18  N. 
B.2d  861,  279  N.T.  773— Gore  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  259  N.T.S. 
410,  144  Misc.  639,  affirmed  260  N. 
T.S.  941,  236  App.D*v.  881— Engel 
v.  Engel,  22  N.T.S.2d  445-— Merkle 
v.  Sable,  197  N.T.S.  576. 

N.C.— Casey  v.  Barker.  14  S.E.2d  429, 
219  N.C.  465. 

N.D. — Darling  &  Co.  v.  Burchard, 
284  N.W.  856,  69  N.D.  212. 

Ohio.— Ades  v.  Ades,  45  N.E.2d  416, 
70  Ohio  App.  487. 

Okl.— Royal  Neighbors  of  America 
v.  Fletcher,  227  P.  426,  99  Okl. 
297. 

Or. — Mt.  Vernon  Nat.  Bank  v.  Morse, 
264  P.  439,  128  Or.  64. 

Fa.— Vaughn  v.  Love,  188  A.  299, 
324  Pa.  276,  107  A.L.R,  1336— 
Potter  v.  'Potter,  42  Pa.Dist  &  Co. 
42 — Evans  v.  Todd,  Com.Pl.,  35 
Luz.Leg.  Reg.  102. 

Tenn. — Dickson  v.  Simpson,  113  S. 
W.2d  1190,  172  Tennu  680,  116  A. 
L.R.  380— -Commerce  Union  Bank 
v.  Sharber,  100  S.W.2d  243,  20 
Tenn.App.  451. 

Tex. — Bradshaw  v.  Peacock,  Civ. 
App.,  191  S.W.2d  698— Knox  v. 
Quinn,  Civ.App.,  164  S.W.2d  580 
— Eaton  v.  Husted,  Civ. App.,  163 
S.W.2d  439,  affirmed  172  S.W.2d 
493,  141  Tex.  349— Hicks  v.  Sias, 
Civ.App.,  102  S.W.2d  460,  error  re- 
fused— Steger  v.  Shofner,  Civ.App., 
54  S.W.2d  1013— Blair  v.  Carney* 
Civ.App..  44  S.W.2d  1031,  error  re- 
fused— Wilson  v.  Beck,  Civ.App., 
286  S.W.  315. 

Utah.— Ricks  v.  Wade,  93  P.2d  47$, 
97  Utah  402. 

Wash. — State  v.  Plummer,  226  P. 
273,  130  Wash.  135. 

33  C.J.  p  1084  note  17. 

In  equity  see  Equity  fi  175  b. 

Extraterritorial  service  generally  see 
the  C.J.S.  title  Process  §  32,  also 
50  C.J.  p  474  note  76~p  476  note 
25. 

Personal  service  out  of  state  in  lieu 
of  publication  see  the  C.J.S.  title 


Process   §§   73,   74,  also  50   C.J.  P 
542  note  80-p  545  note  54.  , 

Courts  exercise  utmost  care  and 
good  faith  in  dealing  with  nonresi- 
dents against  whom  personal  judg- 
ment is  sought  oh  notice  served  out- 
side state.— Fidelity  &  Casualty  Co. 
of  New  York  v.  Bank  of  Plymputh, 
237  N.W.  234,  213  Iowa  1058. 

84.  U.S. — Pennoyer  v.  Nefl,   Or.,    95 
U.S.  714,  24  L.Ed.  565. 

Iowa.— Allen  v.  Allen,  298  N.W.  869, 
230  Iowa  504,  136  A.L.R.  617. 

33  C.J.  p  1085  note  18. 

Under  "due  process"  clause  see  Con- 
stitutional Law  §  619. 

85.  Tex. — Becker    v.     Becker,     Civ. 
App.,   218  S.W.   542— McCaulley  v. 
Western  National  Bank,  Civ.App.f 
173  S.W.  1000. 

8&    Cal.— Pinon  v.  Pollard,  158  P.2d 

254,  69  Cal.App.2d  129. 
111. — Barnett  v.  Cook  County,  26  N. 

E.2d  862,  373  111.  516. 
33  C.J.  p  1085  note  23. 
By  publication  and  mail 

'  Service  of  summons  on  a  resident 
of  state  absent  therefrom  by  pub- 
lication and  mailing  of  copy  of  sum- 
mons and  complaint  to  defendant's 
address  outside  the  state  did  not 
give  court  jurisdiction  to  enter  mon- 
ey judgment  against  defendant  in 
personal  injury  action. — Pinon  v. 
Pollard,  158  P.2d  254,  69  Cal.App.2d 
169. 

87.  Neb.— Braun  v.  Quinn,  199  N.W. 
828,    112   Neb.   485,   39   A.L.R.   411. 

33  C.J.  p  1085  note  27. 

88.  U.S.— Wilson  v.  •Seligman,   Mo., 
12  S.Ct  541,  144  U.S.  41,  36  UEd. 
338— McQuillen   v.    National   Cash 
Register   Co..   C.C.A.Md.,    112   F.2d 
877,  certiorari  denied  61  S.Ct.  140, 
311    U.S.    695,    85    L.Ed.    450,    re- 
hearing denied  61  S.Ct.  316,  -311  U. 
S.    729,    85    L.Ed.    474— McQuillen 
v.  Dillon,  C.C.A.N.T.,  98  F.2d  726, 
certiorari  denied  59  S.Ct  251,  305 
U.S.    655,    83   L.Ed.    424— Oxley   v. 
Sweetlaud,    C.C.A,W.Va.,    94    F.2d 
33— Chicago     Joint     -Stock     Land 
Bank  v.  Minnesota  Loan  &  Trust 
Co.,     C.C.A.Minn.,     57     P.2d     70— 
Beaver  Board  Cos.  v.  Imbrie,  D.C. 
N.T.,  47  P.2d  271. 

57 


Ala.— Campbell  v.  State,  5  So.2d  466, 
242  Ala.  215— Naff  T.  Fairfleld- 
American  Nat  Bank,  165  So.  224, 
231  Ala,  388. 

Ark. — Sinclair  Refining  Co.  v. 
Bounds,  127  S.W.Sd  629,  198  Ark. 
149— Gainsburg  v.  Dodge,  101  S.W. 
2d  178,  193  Ark.  473. 

D.C. — Densby  v.  Acacia  Mut.  Life 
Ass'n,  78  P.2d  203,  64  App.D.C. 
319,  101  A.L.R.  863. 

Del.— Webb  Packing  Co.  v.  Harmon, 
196  A.  158,  9  W.W.Harr.  22. 

Ga. — Blount  v.  Metropolitan  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  9  S.E.2d  65,  190  Ga.  301 
— I^in  v.  Nix,  7  S.E.2d  733,  189 
Ga.  772— Coral  Gables  Corporation 
v.  Hamilton,  147  S.E.  494,  168  Ga. 
182— Wyse'v.  McKinney,  179  S.E. 
860,  51  Ga-App.  204. 

111. — Dunham  v.  Kauffman,  52  N.E. 
2d  143,  385  lit  79.  154  A.L.R.  90. 

Iowa. — McGaffin  v.  Helmts,  230  N.W. 
532,  210  Iowa  108. 

Ky.— Kitchen  v.  New  Tork  Trust 
Co.,  168  S.W.2d  5.  292  Ky.  706. 

Md. — Employers'  Liability  Assur. 
Corporation  v.  -Perkins,  181  A.  43$. 
169  Md.  269. 

Mass. — Harvey  v.  Fiduciary  Trust 
Co.,  13  N.E.2d  299,  299  Mass.  457 
— Durfee  v.  Durfee,  200  NJ33.  395, 
293  Mass.  472— Schmidt  v. 
Schmidt,  182  N.E.  374,  280  Mass. 
2-16— Kling  v.  McTaraahan.  178  N. 
E.  8*1.  277  Mass.  886. 

Mich. — -Stewart  v.  Eaton,  283  N.W. 
651,  287  Mich.  466,  120  A.L.R.  1354. 

N.M.— State  ex  rel.  Truitt  v.  District 
Court  of  Ninth  Judicial  Dist.,  Cur- 
ry County,  96  P.3d  710,  44  N.M. 
16,  126  A.L.R.  651. 

N.T.— Jackson  v.  Jackson,  49  N.B.2d 
988,  290  N.T.  512,  147  A.L.R.  668 
—Geary  v.  Geary,  6  N.E.2d  67,  272 
N.T,  330,  108  A.L.R.  1293— Gar- 
fein  v.  Mdnnls,  162  N.E.  73,  248 
N.T.  261— Kittredge  v.  Grannis, 
155  N.E.  93,  244  N.T.  182— Stoltz 
v.  Stoltz,  238  N.T.S.  207,  1S5  Misc. 
713— In  re  Auto  Mut  Indemnity 
Co.,  14  N.T.S.2d  601— Rodier  v. 
Fay,  7  N.T.S.2d  744. 

N.C.—: Adams  &  Childers  v.  Parker 
&  Harrison,  138  S.E.  405,  194  N. 
C.  48, 

Tex.— Adam  v.  Saenger,  Civ.App./ 
101  S.W.2d  1046,  certiorari  granted 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


iorized  to  accept  service  in  his  behalf,**  or  by  his 
voluntary  appearance  or  submission  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  court,90  or  by  his  otherwise  waiving 
lack  of  service  or  jurisdiction.91  A  personal  judg- 


ment rendered  without  such  service  of  process  or 
notice  on  the  nonresident,  or  his  voluntary  appear- 
ance or  waiver,  is  void,92  even  though  he  had 
knowledge  of  the  pendency  of  the  action  or  pro- 


58  S.Ct.  28,  302  U.S.  668,  82  L. 
Ed.  515,  reversed  on  other  grounds 
58  S.Ct.  454,  303  U.-S.  59,  82  L.Ed. 
649,  rehearing  denied  58  S.Ct.  640, 
303  U.S.  666,  82  L.Ed.  1123,  cer- 
tlorari  denied  Saenger  v.  Adam,  59 
<3.Ct  832,  307  U.S.  628,  83  L.Ed. 
1511— Steger  v.  Shofner,  Civ.App., 
54  S.W.2d  1013— Flinn  v.  Krot2, 
Civ.App.,  293  S.W.  625. 
Wyo. — Closson  v.  Closson,  215  P. 

485,  30  Wyo.  1,  29  A.L.R.  1371. 
33  C.J.  p  1085  note  29,  p  1086  note 

33,  p'l075  note  58. 

Extraterritorial  service  as  insuffi- 
cient see  supra  subdivision  d  of 
this  section. 

Joint  defendants  see  infra  S  83. 
Jurisdiction   of  nonresidents   gener- 
ally see  Courts  §§  88-87. 
A  state  has  power  to  provide  for 
notice   of   actions    against   nonresi- 
dents  found   within   its   borders   in 
such  manner  as  it  may  see  fit  and 
to      render      personal      judgments 
against    them    based    thereon,    pro- 
vided method   employed   gives   rea- 
sonable notice  and  affords  fair  op- 
portunity to  be  heard  before  Issues 
are   decided. — Taplin   v.    Atwater,   8 
N.E.2d  786,  297  Mass.  302. 
Sufficiency  of  service 

A  nonresident  defendant  who  is 
served  in  person  in  commonwealth 
with  notice  of  pendency  of  action 
warning  defendant  to  appear  and 
show  cause  why  judgment  should 
not  be  rendered  against  him  is  a 
party  to  action  so  that  a  binding 
personal  judgment  may  be  rendered 
against  him,  since  notice  itself  is 
"process"  within  statute  permitting 
personal  action  to  be  maintained 
against  nonresident  who  has  been 
served  with  process  in  common- 
wealth,—Taplin  v.  Atwater,  8 
786,  297  Mass.  302. 
Service  anywhere  in  state  mfflcient 
La. — Roper  v.  Brooks,  9  3o.2d  485, 
201  La.  135— Union  City  Transfer 
v.  Fields,  App.,  199  So.  206. 
A0  against  heirs 

Where  no  personal  judgment  had 
been  obtained  against  nonresident 
for  lack  of  personal  service  within 
state,  complainants  acquired  no 
greater  rights  against  resident  heirs 
of  nonresident  where  nonresident 
died  pending  appeal— Commerce  Un- 
ion Bank  v.  Sharber,  TennApp.,  100 
S,W.2d  243. 

89.    Ark.— Sinclair    Refining   Co.   v. 
Bounds,  127   S.W.2d  629,   198  Ark. 
149. 
Del.— Webb  Packing  Co.  v.  Harmon, 

196  A.  158,  9  W.W.B3arr.  22. 
La.— Mitchell  v.  Ernesto,  App.,  141 
So.  818. 


Md.— Employers'  Liability  Assur. 
Corporation  v.  Perkins,  181  A. 
436,  169  Md.  269. 

Attorney's  acknowledgment  of  serv- 
ice 

Ga.— Davis  v.  Davis,  21  S.E.  1002, 
96  Ga.  136. 

Notice  to  attorney,  as  required  toy 
statute 

Ala. — Timmerman  v.  Martin,  176  So. 
198,  234  Ala.  622. 

Service  on  truck  driver  insufficient 

Ark. — Coca-Cola  Bottling  Co.  of 
Southeast  Arkansas  v.  O'Neal,  104 
S.W.2d  808,  19-3  Ark.  1143. 

9a  U.S.— Wilson  v.  Seligman,  Mo., 
12  S.Ct.  541,  144  U.S.  41,  36  L. 
Ed.  "338— McQuillen  v.  National 
Cash  Register  Co.,  C.C.A.Md.,  112 
F.2d  877,  certiorari  denied  61  S. 
Ct.  140,  311  U.S.  695,  85  L.Ed.  450, 
rehearing  denied  61  S.Ct  316,  311 
U.S.  729,  85  L.Ed.  474— Oxley  v. 
Sweetland,  C.C.A.W.Va.,  94  F.2d 
33 — Chicago  Joint  Stock  Land 
Bank  v.  Minnesota  Loan  &  Trust 
Co.,  aC.A.Minn.,  57  F.2d  70. 

Ala.— Naff  v.  Fairfleld-American  Nat. 
Bank,  165  So.  224,  231  Ala.  388 
— Stoer  v.  Ocklawaha  River  Farms 
Co.,  138  So.  270,  223  Ala.  690. 

Ark. — Gainsburg  v.  Dodge,  101  S.W. 
2d  178,  193  Ark,  473. 

Cal.— Pinon  v.  Pollard,  App.,  158  P. 
2d  254. 

Ga.— Fain  v.  Nix,  7  S.E.2d  733,  189 
Ga.  772— Peeples  v.  Mullins,  168  S. 
E.  785,  176  Ga.  743— Irons  v. 
American  Nat  Bank,  165  S.E.  738, 
175  Ga.  552,  followed  in  165  S.E. 
741,  175  Ga.  558— Coral  Gables 
Corporation  v.  Hamilton,  147  S.E. 
494,  168  Ga.  182— Wyse  v.  McKin- 
ney,  179  S.E.  860,  51  Ga.App.  204 
— Rhodes  v.  Southern  Flour  & 
Grain  Co.,  163  S.E.  237,  45  GaApp. 
13. 

Ky.— Kitchen  v.  New  Tork  Trust 
Co.,  168  S.W.2d  5,  292  Ky.  706— 
Dean  v.  Stillwell,  145  S.W.2d  830, 
284  Ky.  639. 

Md.— Employers'  Liability  Assur. 
Corporation  v.  Perkins,  181  A,  436, 
169  Md.  269. 

Mass.— Harvey  v.  Fiduciary  Trust 
Co.,  13  N.E.2d  299,  299  Mass.  457 
—Schmidt  v.  Schmidt  182  N.E. 
374,  280  Mass.  216. 

Mich.— Stewart  v.  Eaton,  283  N.W. 
651,  287  Mich.  466,  120  A.L.R.  1354. 

Mo.— Publicity  Bldg.  Realty  Corpo- 
ration v.  Thpmann,  183  S.W.2d  69, 
353  Mo.  493— Hoffman  v.  Mechan- 
ics-American Nat.  Bank  of  St 
Louis,  App.,  287  S.W.  874. 

N.T.-^Jackson  v.  Jackson,  49  N.E.2d 
988,  290  N.T.  512,  147  A.L.R.  668 
—Geary  v.  Geary,  6  N.E.2d  67, 

58 


272  N.T.  390,  108  AL.R.  1293— 
Kittredge  v.  Grannis,  155  N.E.  93, 
244  N.T.  182— Rodier  v.  Fay,  7  N. 
T.S.2d  744. 

N.C.— Southern  Mills  v.  Armstrong, 
27  S.E.2d  281,  2£3  N.C.  495,  148  A. 
L.R.  1248— Bridger  v.  Mitchell,  121 
S.E.  661,  187  N.C.  374. 

Tex. — Adam  v.  Saenger,  Civ.App.,  101 
S.W.2d  1046,  certiorari  granted  58 
S.Ct.  28,  302  U.-S.  668,  82  L.Ed. 
515,  reversed  on  other  grounds  58 
S.Ct  454,  303  U.S.  59,  82  L.Ed.  649, 
rehearing  denied  58  S.Ct  640,  303 
U.S.  666,  82  L.Bd.  1123,  certiorari 
denied  Saenger  v.  Adams,  59  S.Ct. 
832,  307  U.S.  628,  83  L.Ed.  1511 
—Flinn  v.  Krotz,  Civ  App.,  29« 
S.W.  625. 

33  C.J.  p  1085  note  30,  p  1086  note 
33,  p  1075  note  58. 


Where  nonresident  defendant 
represented  by  curator  only  and 
there  was  no  personal  appearance, 
no  judgment  could  be  rendered 
against  him. — Robinson  v.  U.  S.,  D. 
C.La,,  33  F.2d  545,  reversed  on  other 
grounds,  C.C.A.,  U.  S.  v.  Robinson, 
40  F.2d  14. 
Special  appearance 

If  defendant  appearing  specially 
was  nonresident  at  time  of  service 
of  writ  no  judgment  could  be  ren- 
dered against  him. — Bay  State 
Wholesale  Drug  Co.  v.  Whitman,  182 
N.E.  361,  280  Mass.  188. 

Judgment   on  cross   demand   may 
be   rendered   against   a   nonresident 
plaintiff    submitting    to    the    juris- 
diction of  the  court  by  the  institu- 
tion of  the  suit.— Andrews  v.  White- 
head,  Tex.Civ.App.,  60  S.W.  800. 
93*    U.S.— Wilson  v.  Seligman,  Mo., 
12    S.Ct.    541,   144   U.S.   41,   36   L. 
Ed.  338. 

Ga.— Blount  v.  Metropolitan  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  9  S.E.2d  65,  190  Ga.  301 
— Coral  Gables  Corporation  v. 
Hamilton,  147  S.E.  494,  168  Ga. 
182. 

Md.— Employers'     Liability     Assur. 
Corporation  v.  Perkins,  181  A.  436, 
169  Md.  269. 
33  C.JT.  p  1086  note  34. 
92.    U.S.— Commonwealth    of    Ken- 
tucky, for  Use  and  Benefit  of  Kern 
v.  Maryland  Casualty  Co.  of  Bal- 
timore,   Md.,    C.C.A.Ky.,    112    F.2d 
352 — Beaver  Board  Cos.  v.  Imbrie, 
D.C.N.T.,  47  F.2d  271. 
Ala.— Ex  parte  Luther,  168  So.  59  6, 
232    Ala.    518— Ex   parte   Halsten, 
149  So.  213,  227  Ala,  183— Ex  parte 
Cullinan,  139  So.  255,  224  Ala.  263, 
81  A.L.R.  160— Stoer  v.  Ocklawaha 
River  Farms  Co.,  138  So.  270,  223 
Ala.  690. 
Del.— Hall    v.    Trans-Lux    Daylight 


49    C  J.  S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  24 


ceeding.93  It  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  de- 
fendant is  domiciled  within  the  state  does  not  jus- 
tify the  rendition  of  a  judgment  in  personam  against 
him,  where  the  only  service  of  process  is  by  publi- 
cation, and  he  is  without  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
state  and  does  not  appear.94 

Constructive  or  substituted  service  alone,  will  not 
support   a  personal   judgment  against  a  nonresi- 


dent,95 unless  he  can  be  deemed  to  have  assented  to 
such  -mode  of  service.96,  A  statute  purporting  to 
authorize  a  judgment  against  nonresidents  on  con- 
structive or  extraterritorial  service  has  been  held 
to  that  extent  unconstitutional  and  void.97  Flow- 
ever,  it  has  been  held  that  constructive  service,  as 
by  publication,  will  give  the  court  such  jurisdiction 
over  a  nonresident  that  its  judgment,  although  not 


Picture    Screen    Corporation,    171 

A.  226,  20  Del.Ch.  78. 
Ga. — Ford  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  125 

S.E.  479,  33  Ga.App.  24. 
La. — Krotz    Springs    Oil    &    Mineral 

Water  Co.   v.    Shirk,  116   So.   488, 

165  La.  1005. 
Mass. — Commissioner    of    Banks    v. 

Cosmopolitan  Trust  Co.,   148   N.B. 

609,  253  Mass.  205,  41  A.L.R.  658. 
Miss.— Hume  v.  Inglis,  122  So.  535, 

154  Miss.  481. 
N.T. — Sweeney    v.    National    Assets 

Corporation,    246    N.T.S.    315,    139 

Misc.  223. 
N.C.— Bizzell    v.    Mitchell,    142    S.E. 

706,      195     N.C.     484— Bridger     v. 

Mitchell,    121    S.E.    661,    187    N.C. 

374. 
Tex. — Hicks  v.  -Sias,  Civ.App.,  102  S. 

W.2d    460,    error    refused — Steger 

v.    Shofner,    Civ.App.,    54    S.W.2d 

1013. 

"A  person  residing  outside  the 
state  is  not  required  to  come  within 
its  borders  and  submit  his  contro- 
versy to  its  courts  because  of  notice 
of  the  suit  at  the  place  of  his  resi- 
dence, and  an  ordinary  personal 
judgment  for  money,  invalid  for 
want  of  service  amounting  to  due 
process  of  law,  Is  as  ineffective  in 
as  outside  the  state." — Common- 
wealth of  Kentucky,  for  Use  and 
Benefit  of  Kern  v.  Maryland  Casu- 
alty Co.  of  Baltimore,  McU,  C.C.A. 
Ky.,  112  P.2d  352,  555. 

Judgment  on  cross  petition  against 
nonresident    defendants,    where    no 
process  was  issued  on  cross  petition, 
is  void. 
Ky. — Carter  v,  Capshaw,  60  S.W.2d 

959,  249  Ky.  483. 

Tex. — Adam  v.  Saenger,  Civ.App., 
101  S.W.2d  1046,  reversed  on  oth- 
er grounds  58  S.Ct.  454,  303  U.S. 
59,  82  L.Ed.  649,  rehearing  denied 
58  S.Ct  640,  303  U.S.  666,  82  L.Ed. 
1123,  certiorari  denied  Saenger  v. 
Adam,  59  'S.Ct.  832,  307  U.S.  628,* 
83  L.Ed.  1511. 

Unauthorized   appearance   l>y   attor- 
ney 

Appearance   of  attorney  for  non- 
resident  does   not  give  court  juris- 
diction  over   nonresident,   and   per- 
sonal    Judgment     obtained     against 
nonresident  is  void  ab  initio,  if  ap- 
pearance was  unauthorized. 
N.T. — Amusement   Securities    Corpo- 
ration   v.    Academy   Pictures   Dis- 
tributing  Corporation,    295    N.Y.S. 


436,  251  App.Div.  227,  affirmed  294 
N.T.S.  305,  250  App.Div.  710  and 
294  N.T.S.  306,  250  App.Div.  710, 
motions  denied  295  N.T.S.  472,  250 
App.Div.  749,  affirmed  13  N.E.2d 
471,  277  N.T.  557,  reargument  de- 
nied 14  N.E.2d  383,  277  N.T.  672. 
Okl.— Hatfleld  v.  Lewis,  236  P.  611, 
110  Okl.  98. 

93.  Mich.— Stewart  v.  Baton,  283  N. 
W.   651,  287  Mich.  466,  120  A.L.R. 
1354. 

94.  Cal. — De  La  Montanya  v.  De  La 
Montanya,  44  P.  -345,  112  CaL  101, 
53  Am.S.R.  165,  82  L.R.A.  82. 

Or. — Laughlin  v.  Hughes,  89  P.2d 
568,  161  Or.  295. 

95.  U.S. — Warmsprings  Irr.  Dist  v. 
May,  C.C.A.Or.,  117  F.2d  802— Mc- 
Quillen    v.    Dillon,    C.C.A.N.T.,    98 
F.2d  726,  certiorari  denied  59  S.Ct 
251,    305   U.S.    655,    83    L.Ed.   424— 
Hamilton  Michelsen  Groves  Co.  v. 
Penney,   C.C.A.Fla.,   58   F.2d   761— 
Campbell  v.  City  of  Hickman,  D. 
C.Ky.,  45  F.Supp.  517. 

Cal. — Comfort  v.  Comfort,  112  P.2d 
259,  17  Cal.2d  736— Glaston  v. 
Glaston,  160  P.2d  45,  69  Cal.App.2d 
787,  certiorari  denied  66  S.Ct  484 
— Pinon  v.  Pollard.  158  P.2d  254, 
69  Cal.App.2d  129. 

Fla. — Newton  v.  Bryan,  194  So.  282, 
142  Fla.  14— Harris  Inv.  Co.  v. 
Hood,  167  So.  25,  123  Fla.  598. 

Ga. — Hirsch  v.  Northwestern  Mut. 
Life  Ins.  Co.,  13  S.E.2d  165,  191 
Ga.  524 — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in 
Webb  &  Martin  v.  Anderson-Mc- 
Griff  Hardware  Co.,  3  S.E.2d  882, 
885,  188  Ga.  291— Peoples  v.  Mul- 
lins,  168  S.E.  785,  176  Ga.  743— 
Edwards  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hood,  145  S. 
B.  87,  167  Ga.  144— Ford  v.  South- 
ern Ry.  Co.,  125  S.E.  479,  33  Ga. 
App.  24. 

111. — Bank  of  Edwardsville  v.  Raf- 
faelle,  45  N.E.2d  651,  381  111.  486, 
144  A.L.R.  401— Barnett  v.  Cook 
County,  26  N.E.2d  862,  373  111. 
516 — Griffin  v.  Cook  County,  16 
N.E.2d  906,  369  HI.  380,  118  A.L.R. 
1157— Austin  v.  Royal  League,  147 
N.E.  106,  316  111.  188. 

Ind. — Pattison  v.  Grant  Trust  &  Sav- 
ings Co.,  144  N.E.  26,  195  Ind.  813. 

Ky.— Dean  v.  Stillwell,  145  S.W.2d 
830,  284  Ky.  639. 

Miss. — Hume  v.  Inglis,  122  So.  535, 
154  Miss.  481. 

Mo.— "HoflCuaan    v.    Mechanics- Am  gri- 

59 


can  Nat  Bank  of  St  Liouis,  App., 

287  S.W.  874. 
Nev.— Perry  v.  Edmonds,  84  P.2d  711, 

59  Nev.  60. 
N.T.— Kellogg  v.    Kellogg,    203   N.T. 

S.  757,  122  Misc.  734. 
N.C.— Southern  Mills  v.   Armstrong, 

27    S.E.2d    281,    223    N.C.    495,    143 

A.L.R.    1248— Bridger   v.    Mitchell, 

121   S,E.   661,   187   N.C.   374. 
Okl.— Royal  Neighbors  of  America  v 

Fletcher,  227  P.  426,  99  Okl.  297. 
Or.— Laughlin  v.  Hughes,  89  P.2d 

568,  161  Or.  295. 
Pa.— Atlantic  Seaboard  Natural  Gas 

Co.  v.  Whitten.  173  A.  305,  315  Pa. 

529,     93     A.L.R.     615— Hughes    V. 

Hughes,  158  A.  874,  306  Pa,  75. 
Tenn. — Lawson  v.  American  Laundry 

Machinery  Co..  54  S.W.2d  712,  165 

Tenn.  ISO — Commerce  Union  Bank 

v.    Sharber,    100    S.W.2d    243,    20 

Tenn. App.  451. 
Tex. — Steger  v.  Shofner,  Civ.App.f  54 

S.W.2d   1013— First   Nat.   Bank   v. 

C.  H.  Meyers  &  Co.,  Civ.App.,  283 

S.W.  265 — People's  Guaranty  State 

Bank  v.    Hill,    Civ.App.,    256    S.W. 

683. 
Wis.— Riley    v.    State    Bank    of    De 

Pere,  269  S.W.  722,  223  Wis.  16. 
Wyo. — Fremont  Consol.  Oil  Co.  v. 

Anderson,    12    P.2d    369,    44    Wyo. 

313. 
33  C.J.  p  1085  note  31. 

Service    by   registered   mail   insuffi- 
cient 
Ala.— Campbell  v.  State,  5  So.2d  466, 

242  Ala.  215. 

Miss. — Cudahy  Packing  Co.  v.  Smith, 
2  So.2d  347,  191  Miss.  31. 
Contractual  rights  cannot* be  liti- 
gated cm  constructive  notice  against 
nonresidents. — McKleroy  v.  Dishxnan, 
142  So.  41,  225  Ala.  131. 
On  cross  bill 

A  cross  bill  stands  as  original  suit 
after  dismissal  of  original  bill,  so 
that  judgment  thereon  against  non- 
resident on  notice  only  by  publicar 
tion  is  void. — Lawson  v.  American 
Laundry  Machinery  Co.,  54  S.W.2d 
712,  165  Tenn.  180. 

96. .  Fla.— Newton  v.  Bryan,  194  So. 
282,  142  Fla.  14. 

97.  U.S.— Cella  Commn.  Co.  v.  Boh- 
linger,  Ark.,  147  F.  419,  78  C.CJL 
467,  8  L.R.A.,N.S.,.637. 

33  C.J.  p  1086  note  35. 

Under  "due  process"  clause  see  Con- 
stitutional Law  §  619, 


§  24 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


enforceable  beyond  the  state,  may  be  satisfied  out 
of  any  property  of  defendant  found  within  the 
state,98  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court," 
and  to  that  extent  he  is  bound  by  the  judgment, 
provided  all  the  precedent  proceedings  relating  to 
such  service  strictly  conform  to  the  law.1  Never- 
theless, the  generally  prevailing  rule  is  that  a  per- 
sonal judgment  against  a  nonresident  rendered  on 
constructive  service  is  void  for  all  purposes,  even 
within  the  state  where  it  has  been  rendered,2  un- 
less defendant  appears,8  or  unless  specific  property 
within  the  state  has  been  attached,  and  thus  sub- 
jected to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.4  Where  nei- 
ther person  nor  property  of  a  nonresident  is  found 
within  the  state,  a  judgment  with  respect  to  the 
rights  or  obligations  of  the  nonresident  is  without 
jurisdiction  and  wholly  void.5 

f .  Attachment  and  Garnishment 

A    valid    Judgment    in    person  am    may   be    rendered 


against  a  defendant  In  an  action  begun  by  attachment 
or  garnishment  only  where  he  has  been  personally  served 
with  process  within  the  territorial  Jurisdiction  of  the 
court  or  has  voluntarily  appeared  and  submitted  to  Its 
Jurisdiction. 

Where  jurisdiction  of  an  action  is  acquired  by 
attachment  or  garnishment  of  defendant's  property 
or  credits,  although  the  property  or  credits  so  at- 
tached or  garnished  may  be  subjected  to,  and  bound 
by,  a  judgment  rendered  in  such  action,  as  a  judg- 
ment in  rem,  or  quasi  in  rem,  as  discussed  infra  §§ 
908,  911,  a  valid  general  judgment  in  personam  may 
be  rendered  against  defendant  only  where  he  has 
been  personally  served  with  process,6  or  where  he 
voluntarily  appears  in  the  action  and  thus  subjects 
himself  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,7  as  where 
he  files  a  forthcoming  or  replevy  bond.8  Under 
some  statutes,  if  defendant  is  about  to  remove  the 
property  from  the  state  with  the  intent  to  hinder 
or  delay  creditors,  arid  all  the  parties  are  before 
the  court,  a  personal  judgment  may  be  rendered 


98.  Ala.— Turnipseed    v.    Blan,    148 
So.  116,  226  Ala,  649. 

Tex. — People's  Guaranty  State  Bank 

v.  Hill,  Civ.App.,  256  S.W.  683. 
33  O.J.  p  1086  note  36. 

Ownership  of  notes  and  checks 
follows  domicile  of  their  owner,  and 
the  notes  and  checks  do  not  con- 
stitute "money"  or  "effects"  with 
situs  independent  of  owner's  domi- 
cile.— Steger  v.  Shofner,  TexiCiv. 
App.,  54  S.W.2d  1013, 

99.  Ind.— Clark  v.   Clark,    172   N.E. 
*  124,  202  Ind.  104, 

Tenn. — Commerce     Union     Bank    v. 

Sharber,  100  S.W.2d  243,  20  Tenn. 

App.  451. 
Tex.— Wilson  v.  Beck,  Civ. App.,  286 

S.W.  315. 
Wyo. — Fremont  Consol.  Oil  Co.  v. 

Anderson,    12    P.2d    369,    44    Wyo. 

313. 

1.  Miss.— Mercantile          Acceptance 
Corporation  v.  Hedgepeth,  112  So. 
872,  147  Miss.  717. 

33  O.J.  p  1088  note  57. 

2.  N.T.— Geary  v.  Geary,  6  N.E.2d 
67,  272  N.Y.  300,  108  A.L.R.  1293— 
Forster  v.  Forster,  46  N.Y.S.2d 
320,  182  Misc.  382. 

33  C.J.  p  1087  note  37. 

&    N.Y. — Forster  v.  Forster,  supra. 
3*  C.J.  p  1087  note  38. 

4L  U.S. — Pexmoyer  v.  Nefl,  Or.,  95 
S.Ct  714,  24  L..Ed.  565— Heyde- 
mann  v.  Westinghouse  Electric 
Mfg.  Co.,  C.C.A.N.Y.,  80  F.2d  837. 

Ariz.— Porter  v.  Duke,  270  -P.  625, 
34  Ariz.  217. 

Mass. — Roberts  v.  Anheuser  Busch 
Brewing  Ass'n,  102  N.E.  8' 16,  215 
Mass.  341. 

K.Y.— Haase  T.  Michigan  Steel  Boat 
Co.,  132  N.Y.S.  1046,  148  AppJDiv. 
298,  appeal  dismissed  104  NJE. 


1131,  210  N.Y.  602— Forster  v. 
Forster,  46  N.Y.S.2d  320,  182  Misc. 
382/ 

N.C.— Adams  &  Childers  v.  Packer  & 
Harrison,  138  S.E.  405,  194  N.C.  48. 
Judgment  in  action  begun  by  at- 
tachment or  garnishment  general- 
ly see  infra  subdivision  f  of  this 
section. 

Judgment  held  void,  on  service  by 
publication,  after  attachment  of  sup- 
posed interest  in  realty,  which  did 
not  in  fact  exist. — Matthews  v,  Cur- 
tis, 151  N.E.  778,  20  Ohio  App.  209. 
After  dissolution  of  the  attach, 
ment,  there  can  be  no  judgment 
against  defendant,  where  the  juris- 
diction in  attachment  was  obtained 
by  constructive  service  only. — Theo. 
Ascher  Co,  v,  Dougherty,  114  S.W. 
1111,  134  Mo.App.  511. 

5.  Ariz. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in 
Smith  v.  Normart,  75  P.2d  38,  41, 
51  Ariz.  134. 

33  C.J.  p  1087  note  41. 

a    Ala. — Oliver    v.    Klnney,    56    So. 

203,  173  Ala.  593. 
Ariz. — Brown  v.  First  Nat.  Bank  of 

Winslow,    129    P.2d    664,    59    Ariz. 

392. 
Fla. — Johnson  v.  Clark,  193  So.  842, 

145  Fla.  258. 
Ga. — Collins     v.     Southern     Finance 

Corporation,    180   S.E.   744,  51   Ga. 

App.  400. 

111.— Bloom  v.  Kahl,  255  Ill.App.  456. 
Xja. — Silvennan  v.   Grinnell,   115    So. 

789,  165  La.  587. 
K.Y.— Swedosh    v.    Belding    Hosiery 

Mills,    6    N.Y.S.2d    532,    168    Misc. 

673. 
Okl. — Davies  v.  Thompson,  160  P.  75, 

61  Okl.  21,  L.BJL1917B  395. 
Tex. — 'Big  Four  Shoe   Stores  Co.   v. 

Ludlaaa,  O.V.APP.,  63  S.W.2d-8S5. 

60 


Va. — Maryland  Casualty  Co.  v.  Par- 

rish,  143  S.E.  7.50,  150  Va.  473. 
33  C.J.  p  1088  notes  4§,  51 — 6  C.J.  p 

473  note  43. 
Process  or: 

Appearance  in  garnishment  pro- 
ceeding generally  see  Garnish- 
ment §  123. 

Notice  in  main  action  In  general 

see  Attachment   5§   482-490. 
Judgment  for  excess 

In  order  to  warrant  recovery  In 
attachment  proceeding  exceeding 
value  of  property  impounded  by 
writ,  there  must  be  valid  personal 
service  of  summons. — Purnell  v. 
Morton  Live  Stock  Co.,  1  S.W.2* 
1013,  156  Tenn.  383. 

Statutory  notice  to,  and  service 
on,  defendant  In  attachment  take 
place  of  process  and  service  in  com- 
mon-law actions,  both  of  which  sub- 
ject him  personally  to  court's  juris- 
diction and  render  him  liable  to 
judgment  binding  all  his  property. — 
Peacock  v.  J.  L  Case  Co.,  162  S.BL 
30G,  44  GaJLpp.  499. 

7.  Ala. — Oliver    v.    Kinney,    56    So. 
203,  173  Ala,  593. 

Ga. — Collins    v.     Southern     Finance 

Corporation,   180   S.E.   744,   51   Ga. 

App.  400. 
Va. — Maryland  Casualty  Co.  v.  Par- 

rish,   143  S.E.  750,  150  Va.  473. 
33  C.J.  p  1088  note  5-3— 6  OJ.  p  478 

notes  12,  13. 

8.  Ga. — Collins  v.  -Southern  Finance 
Corporation,   ISO   S.E.    744,   61    Ga. 
App.  400— Blakely  Milling  A  Trad- 
Ing  Co.  v.  Thompson,  128  S.E.  688, 
34  Ga.App.  129— HensJey  v.  Mine- 
han,  114  S.E.  647,  29  Ga.App.  251. 

33  CJ.  p  1088  note  53  [d],  [e]. 

Effect  of  filing  bond  on  right  to  pro- 
ceed to  judgment  see  Attachment 
5  313  b  (3). 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


against  him  without  the  issuance  of  new  process.9 
Nonresidents.  The  same  rules  apply  where  de- 
fendant in  such  an  action  is  a  nonresident;  a  val- 
id personal  judgment  may  be  rendered  against  him 
only  where  he  has  been  personally  served  with 
process,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,10  or 
has  voluntarily  appeared  and  submitted  to  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  court,11  or  acknowledges  service 
of  the  writ  and  waives  the  benefit  of  the  statutes 
respecting  absent  defendants  ;12  and,  in  the  absence 
of  such  service  or  appearance,  a  judgment  although 
expressed  in  general  terms  will  be  effective  only 
against  the  property  so  attached,  as  discussed  infra 
§§  908,  911.  It  cannot  be  made  the  basis  of  further 
proceedings  in  personam  against  defendant.13 


g.  Defective  Process 

A  Judgment  is  void  if  it  is  based  on  a  process  which 
is  so  radlcaliy  defective  as  to  be  equivalent  to  no  proc- 
ess; but  may  be  merely  voidable  if  the  defect  is  a  mere- 
irregularity  which  does  not  prevent  the  process  from 
constituting  legal  notice  to  defendant. 

A  judgment  is  void  where  it  is  based  on  process 
which  is  so  radically  defective  as  to  be  equivalent  to 
no  process,14  and  this  rule  applies  with  respect  to- 
such  a  defect  in  the  issuance  of  an  alias  or  pluries 
writ.15  A  defective  process,  however,  may  be  suf- 
ficient to  constitute  legal  notice  and  support  the 
judgment,16  and  if  the  process,  although  imperfect 
or  irregular  in  some  particulars,  is  sufficiently  com- 
plete to  constitute  a  legal  notice  to  defendant,  and 
to  inform  him  of  the  essential  facts  he  is  entitled  to 
know,  the  consequent  judgment  is  not  void,17  par- 


9.  Ark.— Hutchison    v.    First    Nat. 
Bank,  24$  S.W.  484,  156  Ark.  142. 

10.  Ga.— Chastain  v.  Alford.  20  S.E. 
2d  150,  67  Ga.App.  316. 

Idaho.— Sunderlln  v.  Warner,  246  P. 

1.  42  Idaho  479. 
111.— Hogue    v.    Corbit,    41  N.E.   219, 

156  111.  540,  47  Am.S.R.  232. 
Iowa. — Darrah   v.  Watson,    86   Iowa 

116. 

La.— -Pelican  Well  &  Tool  Supply  Co. 
v.  Johnson,  195  So.  514,  194  La. 
987 — Latham  v.  Glasscock,  108  So. 
1"00,  160  La.  1089 — Whitney  Central 
Trust  &  Savings  Bank  v.  Norton, 
102  So.  306,  157  La.  199. 
Miss.— Sellers  v.  Powell,  152  So.  492, 
168  Miss.  682 — Clark  v.  Louisville 
&  N.  R.  Co.,  130  So.  302,  158  Miss. 
287. 

Mo.— State  ex  reL  Ferrocarriles  Na- 
clonales  Be  Mexico  v.  Rutledge,  56 
S.W.2d  28,  331  Mo.  1015,  85  A.L.R. 
1375,  certiorari  denied  Ferrocar- 
riles Nacionales  De  Mexico  v.  Rut- 
ledge,  53  S.Ct.  689,  289  U.S.  746, 
77  L.Bd.  1492. 
Tex. — Colby  v.  McClendon,  dv.App., 

116  S.W.2d  505. 
83  C.J.  p  1089  note  59. 
Judgment  not  "personal" 

In  action  on  note  and  open  ac- 
count accompanied  by  on  attach- 
ment of  land  of  nonresident  defend- 
ant, Judgment  ordering  sale  of  the 
attached  property  and  appropriation 
of  the  proceeds  to  payment  of  the 
debt  sued  on  was  not  erroneous  as 
a  "personal  judgment"  against  the 
nonresident— Hall  v.  Bradley,  160 
S.W.2d  641,  290  Ky.  120. 

Where  garnishment  is  filed  against 
resident  garnishee,  the  court  ac- 
quires jurisdiction  over  the  gar 
nlshee  and  the  nonresident  defend- 
ant to  the  extent  of  the  value  of  the 
property  in  the  hands  of  the  garoi- 
shee,  and  the  court  may  then  pro 
ceed  to  a  trial  of  the  issues,  and  i 
court  finds  that  the  gaxnishee  is  <nof 
indebted  to  defendant,  power  of  th 


ourt  further  to  proceed  against  de- 
endant  is  ended.— Colby  v.  McClen- 
don,  Tex.Civ.App.,  116  S.W.2d  505. 

.„    Del.— Teatman  v.  Ward,  Super., 

36  A.2d  (855. 
Ga. — Chastain   v.    Alford,    20    S.E.2d 

150,  67  Ga.App.  316. 
ni.— Kerr  v.  Swallow,  33  111.  379. 
Miss.— Sellers  v.  Powell,  152  So.  492, 

168  Miss.  682— Clark  v.  Louisville 

&  N.  R.  Co.,  130  So.  302,  158  Miss. 

287. 
Tex.— Minero  v.  Ross,  Civ.App.,  138 

S.W.  224. 
Special  appearance 

Nonresident  defendant's  appear- 
ance for  sole  purpose  of  dissolving 
attachment,  if  sustained,  defeats 
court's  Jurisdiction.— Adams  v.  Ross 
Amusement  Co.,  161  So.  601,  182  La. 
252. 
12.  Mass. — Richardson  v.  Smith,  11 

Allen  134. 

18.  U.S.— Salmon  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Midland  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  C.C.A. 
Ohio,  285  F.  214. 

33  C.J.  p  1089  note  60. 

14.  Fla.— Seaboard  All-Florida  Ry. 
v.  Leavitt,  141  So,  886,  105  Fla. 
600. 

Ky.— Richardson  v.  Webb,  185  S.W. 
2d  861,  281  Ky.  201. 

La. — Dickey  v.  Pollock,  App.,  183  So. 
48— 'Longino  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.  of 
New  York,  138  So.  687,  18  La.App. 
680. 

tf.Y.— Greater  New  York  Export 
House  v.  Hurtig,  267  N.Y.S.  173 
2139  App.Div.  183,  appeal  dismissed 
Greater  New  York  Export  House 
v.  Peirson,  196  N.E.  290,  265  N.Y 
500. 

S.D.— Corpus  Jtols  quoted  in  Jacobs 
v.  Queen  Ins.  Co.  of  America,  213 
N.W.  14,  51  S.D.  249. 

Tex.— Wise  v.  Southern  Rock  Islanc 
Plow  Co..  Civ.App.,  85  S.W.2d  257 
—Cheshire  v.  Palmer,  Civ.App.,  44 
S.W.2d  438— Ross  v.  Sechrist,  Civ 
App.,  275  S.W.  287— Lepp  v.  Ward 

61 


County  Water  Improvement  Dist. 
No.   2,  Civ.App.,   257   S.W.   916. 
3  C.J.  p  1090  note  67—34  C.J.  p  5S& 
notes  45,  46. 
Fatal  defects 

(1)  Failure  to  state  the  time  and 
lace   for   defendant's  appearance. — 

Venetsianos  v.  Tamasoff,  197  A.  885, 
W.W.Harr.,    Del.,    180—33    C.J.    P 
090  note  67  [b]  (14). 

(2)  Making  return  day  an  impos- 
sible date. — Empire  Gas  &  Fuel  Co. 

'.  Albright,  87  $.W.2d  1092,  126  Tex. 
485—33  C.J.  p  1090  note  67   [b]   (1). 

(3)  Omission   or   misstatement   of 
date  of  filing  of  petition,  as  required 
by  statute. — Wise  v.  Southern  Rock 
Island  Plow  Co.,  Tex.Civ.App.,  85  S. 
W.2d  257— State  v.   Buckholts  State 
Bank,  Tex.Civ.App.,   193   S.W.   730. 

(4)  Requiring  appearance  on  a  day 
subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  ren- 
dition  of   the    Judgment. — Moore   v. 
Smith,   15   S.B.2d  48,   177  Va.   621. 

(5)  Other  fatal  defects  see  88  C- 
J.  p  1090  note  67  [bj. 

15.  Mich.— Rood  v.  McDonald,  7  N. 
W.2d  95,  <303  Mich.  634. 

o. — Weaver  v.  Woodling,  272  S.W*  ' 
373,  220  Mo.App.  970. 

16.  Tenru — Corpus    Juris    cited    in 
Hunter  v.  May,  25  S.W.2d  580,  581, 
161  Tenn.  155. 

17-  Iowa, — Swan  v.  McGowan,  231 
N.W.  440,  212  Iowa  631. 

Minn. — Peterson  v.  W.  Davis  &  Sons, 
11  N.W.2d  800,.  216  Minn.  60. 

N.C.— Nail  v.  McConnell,  •  190  S.B. 
210,  211  N.C.  258. 

Oti. — Texas  Title  Guaranty  Co.  Y- 
Mardis,  98  P.2d  598,  186  Okl.  433. 

Tex. — Rhoads  v.  Daly  General  Agen- 
cy, Civ.App.,  152  S.W.2d  461— 
Weaver  v.  Garrietty,  Civ.App.,  84 
S.W.2d  878. 

33  C.J.  P  1091  note  68—34  C.J.  p  534 
note  43. 

As  not  subject  to  collateral  attack 
see  infra  §  422. 


§24 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


ticularly  where  defendant  has  waived  such  defects 
in  the  process.**  Although  there  is  also  authority 
to  the  contrary,1*  it  has  been  held  that  the  omission 
of  a  proper  seal  from  the  process,  or  the  use  of  an 
improper  seal,  merely  renders  the  judgment  defec- 
tive, and  not  void,20  particularly  where  service  has 
teen  accepted  and  defendant  has  voluntarily  ap- 
peared.21 

Designation  of  parties.  Process  which  is  radical- 
ly defective  with  respect  to  the  designation  of  the 
names  of  the  parties,**  either  plaintiff**  or  defend- 
ant,24 will  not  support  a  judgment.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  validity  of  the  judgment  is  not  affected 
by  an  inaccuracy  in  the  designation  of  a  party  in 


Opening  and  vacating  Judgment  for 
defects  in  process  see  infra  S  267. 
•The  object  of  "smnanons"  is  to 
apprise  defendant  that  plaintiff 
seeks  judgment  against  defendant, 
and,  when  defendant  is  apprised  of 
such  fact  and  summons  does  not  so 
far  vary  from  the  statutory  form 
as  to  deprive  defendant  of  any  sub- 
stantial right  the  court  acauires  ju- 
risdiction to  render  judgment,— 
Barth  v.  Owens,  35  N.T.S.2d  632,  178 
Misc.  628. 
Errors  or  defects  not  fatal 

(1)  As  to  return  day. 

Ark.— United  Order  of  Good  Samar- 
itans v.  Brooks.  270  S.W.  955,  168 
Ark.  570. 

Okl.— Jones  v.  Standard  Lumber  Co., 
249  P.  343,  121  Okl.  186. 

33  C.J.  p  1091  note  68  [b]. 

(2)  Erroneous   direction  to  wrong 
sheriff,  who  by  indorsement  on  sum- 
mons appointed  sheriff  to  whom  It 
•should  have  been  directed,  and  was 
properly  served  by  latter  sheriff.— 
Whiteker  v.  First  Nat  Bank,  231  P. 
691,  32  Wyo.  288. 

(3)  Misnaming  the  county  seat  of 
•county  in  which  action  was  filed. — 
Tyler  Boat  Works  v.  Schreiner,  153 
P.2d  1004,  194  Okl.  601. 

(4)  Other    errors    or    defects    not 
fatal  see  33  C.J.  P  1091  note  68  [a]. 
•Mutilation  of  record 

Where  summons  was  properly  ls- 
.sued  and  served  and  made  returna- 
'ble  to  a  term  subsequent  to  the 
service,  the  unauthorized  act  of  some 
•one  after  final  judgment  in  mutilat- 
ing the  record  so  as  to  indicate  that 
It  was  returnable  to  a  prior  term, 
•could  not  deprive  the  court  of  juris- 
diction or  render  the  judgment  in- 
valid.—Henneke  v.  Strack,  Mo.App., 
101  S.W.2d  74*. 
13.  N.C.— Moseley  v.  Deans,  24  S.B. 

2d  630,  222  N.C.  781. 
•General  appearance  as  waiver  of  de- 
fects In  process  see  Appearances  S 
17. 

Time  for  objections  for  defects  in 
process,  and  waiver  or  cure  there- 


the  process  if  the  real  party  intended  is  not  misled 
thereby.25  With  regard  to  misnomer,  it  has  been 
held  that  if  process  is  really  served  on  the  person 
intended  to  be  sued,  although  a  wrong  name  is  given 
him  in  the  writ  and  return,  and  he  suffers  a  de- 
fault, or  omits  to  plead  the  misnomer  in  abatement 
he  is  bound  by  the  judgment  rendered  against  him.26 
A  similar  rule  applies  in  the  case  of  a  misnomer  of 
plaintiff.27 

h.  Defective  Service 

A  judgment  bashed  on  a  service  of  process  which 
is  so  defective  as  to  amount  to  no  service  at  all,  has 
been  held  void.  If,  however,  the  service,  although  de- 
fective, Is  sufficient  to  give  the  defendant  notice  of  the 

Baker,  Bccles  &  Co.,  173  S.W.  109, 
162  Ky.  683,  L.B.A.1917C  171— War- 
rick  v.  McCormick,  150  S.W.  1027, 
150  Ky.  800. 

25.    Okl. — Glenn  v.  Prentice,  12  P.2d 

170,  158  Okl.  73. 
Tex.— Gillette   Motor   Transport   Co. 

v.  Whitfield,  Civ.App.,   160   S.W.2d 

290 — Belknap    Hardware    &    Mfg. 

Co.  v.  Ughtfoot,  Civ.App.,  75  S.W. 

2d  481 — Beaumont,  S.  Lu  &  W.  R. 

Co.   v.   Daniel,   Civ.App.,   186   S.W. 

383. 

Designating-  defendant  toy  trade, 
name  rather  than  real  name. — 
Belknap  Hardware  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Lightfoot,  75  S.W.2d  481. 


of,  see  the  C.J.S.  title  Process  § 
113,  also  50  C.J.  P  595  note  50- 
p  599  -note  4. 

19.  Ark.— Woolford     v.     Dugan,     2 
Ark.  131. 

Tex. — Line  v.  Cranfall,  Civ.App.,  37 
S.W.  184. 

33  C.J.  p  1090  note  67  [c]. 

20.  Ark. — Oliver  v.  Routh,  184  S.W. 
84'3,  123  Ark.  189— Rudd  v.  Thomp- 
son, 22  Ark.  363. 

BTa. — Benedict  v.  W.  T.  Hadlow  Co., 
42  So.  239,  52  Fla.  188. 

Tex.— Rhoads  v.  Daly  General  Agen- 
cy, Civ.App.,  152  S.W.2d  461. 

34  C.J.  P  534  note  43  [f]. 

21.  N.C.— Moseley  v.  Deans,  24  S.B. 
2d  630,  222  N.C.  731. 

22.  Tex.— Delaware  Western  Constr. 
Co.  v.  Farmers'  &  Merchants'  Nat 
Bank  of   Gilmer,   77   S.W.   628,   33 
TeX.Civ.App.  658. 

33  C.J.  p  1090  note  67  [e]. 

Designation  of  parties  in  process 
generally  see  the  C.J.S.  title  Proc- 
ess §  15,  also  50  C.J.  p  458  note  36 
-p  459  note  49. 

23.  Fla. — Western  Union  Telegraph 
Co.  v.  Hiscock,  96  So.  407,  85  Fla. 
480. 

N.Y.— Durst  v.  Ernst,   91  N.T.S.   13, 

45  Misc.  627. 
SS  C.J.  P  1090  note  67  [gL 


24.    Mass.— F.  H.  Hill  &  Co.  v.  Doe, 

189  N.B.   583,   286   Mass.  187. 
Tex. — Maier   v.    Davis,    Civ.App.,    72 

S.W.2d  308. 
W.Va.— New  Eagle  Gas  Coal  Co.  v. 

Burgess,    111   S.E.    508,    90   W.Va, 

541. 
33  C.J.  P  1090  note  67  [f],  [h],   [13. 

p  1092  note  72  [a]. 

Warning  order 

An  affidavit  for  a  warning  order 
in  a  verified  petition,  alleging  that 
defendant  was  a  nonresident  and  giv- 
ing his  postoffice  address,  but  not  al- 
leging a  belief  that  he  was  then 
absent  from  the  state,  does  not  war- 
rant the  issuance  of  a  warning  or- 
der, and  a  judgment  rendered  there- 
on is  void.— Leonard  v.  Williams,  265 
S.W.  618,  205  Ky.  218— Baker  v. 

62 


26.    Colo. — Van  Buren  v.   Posteraro, 
102  P.  1067,  45  Colo.  588,  132  Am. 
S.R.  199. 
111.— Feld  v.  Loftis,  88  N.E.  281,  240 

111.  105. 
Mo. — Kronski    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R. 

Co.,  77  Mo.  362. 
Neb. — Jones   v.   Union  Pac.   R.   Co., 

120  N.W.  946,   84  Neb.  121. 
N.Y.— Morison  v.   Laing,   117  N.T.S. 

416,  132  App.Div.  689. 
Tex. — Adams  v.  Consolidated  Under- 
writers, 124  S.W.2d  840,   133  Tex. 
26— Abilene     Telephone     &     Tele-    • 
graph   Co.   v.   Williams,    229    S.W. 
847,  111  Tex,  102— McGhee  v.  Ro- 
matka,  45  S.W.  552,  92  Tex.  38— 
Maier  v.-  Davis,  Civ.App.,  72  S.W. 
2d  308. 
33  C.J.  p  1092  note  72. 

Xa  future  litigation,  defendant  may 
be  connected  with  the  judgment  by 
proper  averments,  which,  when  made 
and  proved,  conclude  such  person  to 
the  same  extent  as  though  he  had 
been  named  and  served  in  his  true 
name. 

Neb.— Jones    v.   Union   Pac.   R.   Co., 
120  NJW.  946,  84  Neb.  121. 
x. — Adams  v.  Consolidated  Under- 
writers,  124  S.W.2d  840,   133  Tex. 
26. 

27.    Mass.— U,   S.  National  Bank  v. 
Venner,  52  N.E.  543,  172  Mass.  449. 
33  C.J.  p  1092  note  73. 


49    O.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§2* 


action  or  proceeding,  a  Judgment  bated  thereon  has  been 
held  merely  voidable. 

Where  the  service  of  process  on  a  defendant  is 
so  defective  as  to  amount  to  no  service  at  all,  a 
judgment  based  thereon  has  been  held  to  be  void,28 
notwithstanding  he  had  knowledge  of  the  suit29  A 
judgment  against  defendant  is  void,  in  the  absence 
of  appearance,  where  it  is  based  on  the  service  of 
process  on  another  than  defendant,  the  person 
named  in  the  process,80  although  the  person  served 
bears  the  same  name.31  A  judgment  has  also  been 
held  void  where  the  service  of  process  on  a  non- 
resident, within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  was 
obtained  by  fraud,  as  where  he  was  induced  by 
fraud  to  come  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court, 
where  he  was  .served  with  process.82  A  judgment 
is  also  void  where  process  directed  to  the  sheriff 
of  one  county  was  served  by  the  sheriff  of  another 
county.88 

A  defective  service,  however,  may  be  sufficient  to 


constitute  legal  notice  and  support  a  judgment.8* 
If  the  service  is  merely  irregular,  but  actually  gives 
defendant  notice  of  the  action  or  proceeding,  a 
judgment  based  thereon  has  been  held  not  void, 
but  at  most  merely  voidable,85  as  where  there  is  a 
mere  defect  or  irregularity  as  to  the  time  of  serv- 
ice86 or  in  failing  to  serve  a  copy  of  the  com- 
plaint;87 and,  moreover,  the  judgment  is 'not  even 
voidable  if  the  defect  or  irregularity  has  been 
waived.88 

Substituted  or  constructive  service.  In  accord- 
ance with  the  rule  requiring  the  statutory  provi- 
sions relating  to  substituted  or  constructive  service- 
of  process  to  be  strictly  applied,  unless  defendant 
has  appeared  or  pleaded  in  the  case89  a  judgment 
has  been  held  void  where  it  is  based  on  substituted 
or  constructive  service,  or  service  by  publication, 
which  is  not  mads  in  strict  compliance  with  the 
essential  statutory  requirements  relating  thereto,4(> 
provided,  under  some  statutes,  the  failure  to  com- 


28.  Fla. — State  ex  reL  Gore  v.  Chil- 
lingworth,    171    So.    649,    126    Fla, 
645. 

Ga. — Rhodes    v.    Southern    Flour    & 

Grain  Co.,  163  S.E.  237,  45  Ga.App. 

13. 

111. — Sunbeam  Heating  Co.  v.  Cham- 
bers,   53    N.E.2d    294,    321    Jll.App. 

629. 
La. — Fullilove  v.  Central  State  Bank, 

107  So.  590,  160  La.  831— Quinn  v. 

O'Neil,  121  So.  377,  10  La.App.  121. 
Mo. — Coerver  v.  Crescent  Lead  & 

Zinc  Corporation,   286  S.W.   3,   315 

Mo.  276. 
33  C.J.  p  1092  note  76—34  C.J.  p  685 

note  47. 
Opening-   or    vacating   Judgment   for 

defective  service  see  infra  §  267. 
Defects  of  service  held  fatal 

(1)  Service   by   deputy  sheriff  be- 
yond territorial  confines  of  his  own 
parish.— Adams    v.     Citizens'    Bank, 
1*6    So.    107,    17   La.App.   422. 

(2)  Service  on  nonresident  suitors 
and  witnesses  in  attendance  on  trial 
and   immune   from   process. — North- 
western   Casualty   &   Surety   Co.    v. 
Conaway,    230    N.W.    548,    210    Iowa 
126,  68  A.L.R.  1465. 

(3)  Other  fatal  defects  and  irreg- 
ularities of  service  see  83  C.J.  p  1093 
note  77. 

Judgment  merely  voidable 

It  has  been  held  that  a  judgment 
of  a  court  of  general  jurisdiction 
is  merely  voidable,  where  service 
has  not  been  obtained  in  the  re- 
quired manner,  or  defendant  has 
been  denied  day  in  court  by  lack  of 
proper  service. — Lynch  v.  Collins, 
233  P.  709,  106  Okl.  133. 

29.  111. — Sunbeam    Heating    Co.    v. 
.  Chambers,   53   NJS3.2d  294,   321  111. 

App.  629. 


Ohio.— Haley  v.  Hanna,  112  NJB.  149, 
93  Ohio  St.  49. 

30.  U.S.— Elliott   v.   Holmes,    C.C.I11., 
8  F.Cas.No.4,392,  1  McLean  466. 

Cal. — Adams  &  Co.  v.  Town,  3  Cal. 

247. 
Tex.— Barnett  v.  Tayler,  30  Tex.  453 

— Booth  v.   Holmes,   2  TexUnrep. 

Gas.  232. 

31.  Tex. — State    Mortgage    Corpora- 
tion   v.    Traylor,    36    S.W.2d    440, 
120  Tex.  148. 

32.  U.S. — Wyman  v.  Newhouse.  C.C. 
A.N.Y.,     93    F.2d    313,    115    A.L.R. 
460,  certiorari  denied  58  S.Ct  831, 
303  U.S.  664,   82  LJSd.  1122. 

Iowa,— Miller  v.  Acme  Feed,  293  N. 
W.  637,  228  Iowa  861. 

33.  Ga,— W.     T.    Rawleigh    Co.     v. 
Greenway,    26    S.E.2d    458,    69    Ga. 
App.  590 — Strauss  v.  Owens,  65  S. 
E.  161,  6  Ga.App.  415. 

Ky.— Foster  v.  Hill,   138  S.W.2d  495. 

282  Ky.  -327. 
Tex.— Hitt  v.   Bell,   Civ.App.,   Ill   S. 

W.2d  1164. 

34.  Tenn. — Hunter  v.  May,  25  S.W. 
2d  580,  161  Texm.  155. 

35.  Fla. — State  ex  rel.  Gore  v.  Chil- 
llngworth,    171    So.    649,    126    Fla. 
645 — Voorhies  v.  Barnsley,  156  So. 
234,  116  Fla,  191— Walker  v.  Car- 
ver,  112   So.   45,   93   Fla.    337. 

Ky. — Ely  v.  U.  S.  Coal  &  Coke  Co., 

49   S.W.2d  1021,  243  Ky.  725. 
Miss. — Mclntosh    v.     Munson    Road 

Machinery    Co.,    145    So.    731,    167 

Miss.  546. 
Neb. — Campbell    'Printing    Press     & 

Mfg.   Co.  v.  Marder,   Luse  &  Co., 

69  N.W.  774,  50  Neb.  283,  61  Am. 

S.R.  573. 
Va.— Wood    v.    Kane,    129    SJS.    327, 

143  Va.  281. 

63 


Wash.— Atwood  v.   McGrath,    242   P. 

648,  137  Wash.  400. 
33  C.J.  p  1092  note  76,  p  1093  note- 

78. 
Collateral  attack  see  infra   §   422. 

36.  N.C.— Nail  v.  McConnell,  190  S. 
B.  210.  211  N.C.  258. 

Okl.— Goldsmith   v.    Owens,    68   P.2A 

849,  180  Okl.  268. 
Tex. — Florence    v.    Swails,    CIvJLpp., 

85  S.W.2d  257. 

33  C.J.  p  1093  note  78  [a], 

37.  Wash. — Munch    v.    McLaren,    38- 
P.  205,  9  Wash.  676. 

34  C.J.  p  534  note  44  [dj. 

38.  Fla. — Voorhies  v.   Bamsley,   15£ 
So.  234,  116  Fla.  191. 

General  appearance  as  waiver  of  de- 
fects in  service  of  process  see  Ap- 
pearances §  17. 

Waiver  of  defects  in  service  of  proc- 
ess generally  see  the  C.J.S.  title- 
Process  §  113,  also  50  C.J.  p  59$ 
note  59-p  599  note  11. 

39.  Fla.— McGee  v.  McGee,  22  So.2d. 
788 — United   Brotherhood    of   Car- 
penters and  Joiners  of  America  v. 
Graves  lav.  Co.,  15  So.2d  196,  153: 
Fla.  529. 

Kan. — Union  Central  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Irrigation  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  42" 
P.2d  566,  141  Kan.  675. 

40.  U.S. — Pen-Ken   Gas   &  Oil   Cor- 
poration  v.   Warfield  Natural   Gas. 
Co.,   <XC.A.Ky.,   137   F.2d   871,   cer- 
tiorari denied  64  S.Ct.   431,  320  U. 
S.  800,  88  L.Ed  483,  rehearing  de- 
nied   64    S.Ct.    634,    321    U.S.    803;. 
88  L.Ed.  1089. 

Fla.— >McGee  v.  McGee,  22  So.2d  78& 
— United  Brotherhood  of  Carpen- 
ters and  Joiners  of  America  v.. 
Graves  Inv.  Co.,  15  So.2d  196,  1.5$ 
Fla.  529— Klinger  v.  Milton  Hold- 
ing Co.,  186  So.  526,  136  Fla.  50— 


24 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


ply  with  the  statute  appears  on  the  face  of  the  rec- 
ord or  judgment  roll.41  A  judgment  based  on  serv- 
ice by  publication  has  been  held  void  where  the 
requirements  of  the  statute  were  not  complied  with, 
with  respect  to  the  time  of  publication  of  the  proc- 
ess,42 or  with  respect  to  the  affidavit  for  the  or- 
der of  publication,48  or  with  respect  to  posting  or 


mailing  a  copy  of  the  summons,  complaint,  and  or- 
der to  defendant.44  However,  the  mere  fact  that 
the  affidavit  is  defective  in  the  method  of  stating 
the  facts,  or  in  the  degree  of  proof,  has  been  held 
to  make  a  judgment  based  thereon  merely  void- 
able.45 


Stern  v.  Raymond,  116  So.  $.   95 
Fla,  410. 

111.— Martin  V.  Schillo,  60  N.E.2d  392, 
389  111.  607,  certiorarl  denied  65 
S.Ct  1572,  325  U.S.  880,  89  L.Ed. 
1996. 

Kan. — Union  Central  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Irrigation  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  42  P. 
2d  566,  141  Kan.  675. 

La.— Richardson  v.  Trustees'  Loan  & 
Guaranty  Co.,  132  So.  (387,  15  La. 
App.  645. 

Mo. — Davison  v.  Arne,  155  S.W.2d 
155,  348  Mo.  790— Dent  v.  Invest- 
ors* Sec.  Ass'n,  254  S.W.  1080,  300 
Mo.  552— Williams  v.  Luecke,  App., 
152  S.W,2d  991— Haake  v.  Union 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  App.,  54  S.W. 
2d  459. 

N.C.— Guerin  v.  Guerin,  181  S.E.  274, 
208  N.C.  457. 

Okl.— Locke  v.  Gilbert,  271  P.  247, 
133  Okl.  93— Dow  v.  Cowley-Frye 
Lumber  Co.,  247  P.  1109,  119  Okl. 
60. 

Or. — Okanogan  State  Bank  of  River- 
side, Wash.  v.  Thompson,  211  P. 
933,  106  Or.  447. 

Tex.— Smith  v.  Commercial  Credit 
Corp.,  Civ.App.,  187  S.W.2d  360, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  Com- 
mercial Credit  Corp.  v.  Smith,  187 
S.W.2d  363,  143  Tex.  612— Perez 
v.  B.  P.  Lipscomb  &  Co.,  Civ.App. 
267  S.W.  748. 

33  C.J.  p  1093  note  80. 

Strict  compliance  with  statute  as 
to  substituted  service  or  service 
by  publication  generally  see  the 
C.J.S.  title  Process  §§  43,  55,  also 
50  C.J.  p  490  note  77-p  491  note 
81,  p  497  note  17-p  498  note  28. 

Tender  wcoastita,tional  statute 

Service  of  summons  on  alleged 
resident  agent  of  nonresident  indi- 
vidual  would  not  warrant  rendition 
of  judgment  against  the  individual 
as  such,  where  the  statute  author- 
izing service  on  agent  of  nonresi- 
dent individuals  engaged  to  business 
within  the  state  is  unconstitutional. 
-Clones  v.  Fuller,  134  S.W.2d  240, 
280  Ky.  671. 

Defects  held  fatal 

(1)  Service    by    publication   when 
defendants   were  residents   of  state 
at   date   of   service   and   their  resi- 
dence known  to  plaintiff. — 'Perez  v. 
B.  P.  Lipscomb  &  Co.,  Tex.Civ.App., 
267  S.W.  748. 

(2)  Service   by   publication  tinder 
order  not  based  on  affidavit  for  at- 
tachment,    stating-    that    defendant 
was  nonresident*  but  solely  on  alle- 


gation or  finding  that  she  could  not 
be  summoned. — Haake  v.  Union  Bank 
&  Trust  Co.,  MO.APP.,  54  S.W.2d 
459. 

(3)  Leaving:     summons     at    place 
which  was  not  defendant's  last  and 
usual    place    o€   abode.— P.   H.    Hill 
Co.  v.  Doe,  1-89  N.B.  588,  286  Mass. 
187. 

(4)  Leaving  citation  at  house   in 
which    nonresident    defendant    had 
resided,    but   which  was   no   longer 
his  domicile.— Williams  &  Miller  v. 
Jones,  La.App.,  180  So.  140. 

(5)  Service  by  mail. — Estok  v.  Bs- 
tok,  157  A.  356,  102  Pa.Super,  604— 
Skrynski  v.  Zeroka,  98  PaJSuper.  469. 

(6)  Service   on   one   not  living  at 
defendant's  domicile. — Richardson  v. 
Trustees1  Loan  &  Guaranty  Co.,  132 
So.  387,  15  La.App.  645. 

(7)  Service  on  director  of  corpo- 
ration Instead  of  on  person  named 
in  statute. — State  v.  District  Court 
of  Seventh  Judicial  Dist,  in  and  for 
Mineral  County,  273  P.  659,  51  Nev. 
206,  followed  in  273  P.  661,  51  Nev. 
214,  and  rehearing-  denied  275  P.  1, 
51  Nev.  3SO. 

(8)  Service  on  agent  or  attorney 
of  a  nonresident  defendant 

Ala. — Woodfln  v.  Curry,  153  So.  620, 

228  Ala.  436. 
Ky.— -Jones  v.  Puller,  184  S.W.2d  240, 

280  Ky.  671. 
S.C. — Matheson  v.  McCormac,  195  S. 

B.  122,  186  S.C.  93.      • 

(9)  Other    defects    see    33    C.J.    p 
1093  note  80  [a]. 

41.  U.S.— Pen-Ken  Gas   &  Oil  Cor- 
poration v.  Warfleld  Natural  Gas 
Co.,   CXJJLKy.,   137  P.2d   871,   cer- 
tiorari  denied  64  'S.Ct  431,  320  U. 
S.  800,  88  L.Ed.  483,  rehearing  de- 
nied   64    S.Ot    634,    321    U.S.    803, 
88  L.Ed.  1089. 

Okl.— Locke  v.  Gilbert,  271  P.  247. 
133  Okl.  93. 

42.  Ariz.— Fidelity  &  Deposit  Co.  of 
Maryland  v..  Meldrum,  50  P.2d  570, 
46  Ariz.  295. 

Tex.— Mitchell  v.  Reitz,  Civ.App.,  269 
S.W.  279. 

43.  U.S.— Butler    v.    McKey,    C.OA. 
CaL,    138   P.2d   373,   certiorari   de- 
nied   64    S.Ct    636.    321    U.S.    780, 
88  L.Ed.  1073. 

Colo. — Federal  Farm  Mortg.  Corpo- 
ration v.  Schmidt,  126  P.2d  1086. 
109  Colo.  467. 

Okl.— Robins  y.  Lincoln  Terrace 
Christian  Church,  75  *P.2d  874.  181 

64 


Okl.   615 — Morgan  v.  Stevens,   22S 

P.  365,  101  Okl.  116. 
Or. — Laughlin    v.    Hughes,    89    P.2d 

568,  161  Or.  295. 
S.C.— Ray  v.  Pilot  Fire  Ins.  Co..  121 

S.B.  779,  128  S.C.  323. 
34  C.J.  p  536  note  61. 

Validity  of  Judgment  rendered  on 
citation  by  publication  depends,  not 
on  fact  that  an  affidavit  in  proper 
form  was  filed,  but  rather  on  truth 
of  grounds  set  up  as  basis  for  Is- 
suance and  service  of  citation  by 
publication. — Smith  v.  Commercial 
Credit  Corp.,  Civ.App.,  187  S.W.2d 
360,  reversed  on  other  grounds  Com- 
mercial Credit  Corp.  v.  Smith,  187  S. 
W.2d  363,  143  Tex.  612. 
Affidavits  held  fatally  defective 

(1)  Affidavit     based    on     hearsay 
that     defendant    cannot     be    found 
within  state  or  conceals  himself  to 
avoid   service    of    summons. — Butler 
v.   McKey,   C.C.A.CaL,   138   F.2d  373, 
certiorari   denied    64   S.Ct    636.   921 
U.'S.  780,  88  L.Bd.  1073. 

(2)  Other  affidavits  see  33  OJ.  p 
1093  note  80  [b]. 

44.  N.Y. — B.  Berman,  Inc.  v.  Amer- 
ican   Fruit    Distributing    Co.,    186 
N.T.S.  376,  114  Misc.  345, 

33  C.J.  p  14)93  note  80  Cc]. 

45.  U.S. — Thompson    v.    Thompson, 
App-D.C.,  33  S.Ct  129,  226  U.S.  551. 
57  L.Ed.  347. 

Neb.— Atkins  v.  Atkins,  2  N.W.  466, 

9  Neb.  191. 

N.Y.— Smith  v.  R.  B.  t  Bldg.  Cor- 
poration,   215   N.T.S.   1,   126   MlfiKS. 

826. 
Okl.— Frost  v.   Bavis,   79   P.2d   800, 

182  Okl.  593.    . 
Utah.— Salt  Lake  City  v.  Salt  Lake 

Inv.  Co.,  134  P.  603,  43  Utah  181. 
33   C.J.  P   1091  note   68    [i],   p   1093 

note    80    [b]    (9)— 34    C.J.    p    536 

notes  53,  59. 
Improvidently  made 

The  fact  that  (affidavit  supporting 
request  for  issuance  of  citation  by 
publication  on  ground  that  defend- 
ant's residence  was  unknown  had 
been  improvidently  made,  if  estab- 
lished, would  not  render  Judgment 
in  the  proceedings  void. — Commer- 
cial Credit  Corp.  v.  Smith,  187  S.W. 
2d  863,  143  Tex.  &L2. 
"WHeseabouts"  Instead  of  "resi- 
dence" 

The  use  of  the  word  "where- 
abouts" in  an  affidavit  for  service  J>y 
publication  which  states  that  th,e 
"whereabouts"  of  defendant  U  TO- 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  26 


§  25.    Return  and  Proof  of  Service 

A  valid  judgment  ordinarfty  may  fee  rendered  only 
where  due  service  of  process  is  shown  by  a  return  or 
other  proof. 

Although  the  validity  of  a  judgment  rests  on  the 
service  of  process  rather  than  on  the  return,  which 
is  simply  evidence  in  respect  of  the  process,46  a 
proper  return,  showing  that  process  has  been  duly 
served,  is  ordinarily  necessary  in  order  that  a  valid 
judgment  may  be  rendered.47  Accordingly  a  judg- 
ment has  been  held  void  where  the  return  or  other 
proof  is  so  faulty  or  defective  as  not  to  show  a  le- 
gal service  of  process,48  although  mere  irregulari- 
ties in  the  return  or  proof  will  not  vitiate  the  judg- 
ment.49 If  the  nonservice  of  process  appears  on 
the  face  of  the  papers  or  is  discernible  from  an  in- 
spection of  the  record,  the  judgment  may  be  treated 


as  a  nullity,50  and  it  has  been  held  that  the  judgment 
is  void  whether  such  lack  of  jurisdiction  appears 
on  the  face  of  the  record  or  is  shown  aliunde.51 

§  26.    Appearance 

A  judgment  bas?d  on  the  voluntary  general  appear- 
ance by  or  on  behalf  of  the  defendant  is  valid. 

A  voluntary  general  appearance  in  an  action  is 
a.  waiver  of  a  want  of  process,  or  of  any  defects 
in  the  process  or  its  service,  or  return,  and  gives 
the  court  full  jurisdiction  over  his  person,  as  dis- 
cussed in  Appearances  §  17,  and  accordingly,  al- 
though a  defendant  has  not  received  any  notice,  or 
proper  process  or  service  thereof,  a  judgment  in 
personam  against  him  is  valid  and  binding  if  a 
general  appearance  has  been  entered  by  him  or  on 
his  behalf.52  However,  a  judgment  in  personam 


known,  Instead  of  the  word  "resi- 
dence," which  is  used  in  the  statute, 
is  a  mere  irregularity  which  will  not 
render  an  attachment  judgment  void. 
— Fisher 'v.  Jordan,  C.C.A.Tex.,  116  F. 
2d  183,  certiorari  denied  Jordan  v. 
Fisher,  61  S.Ct.  734,  312  U.S.  697,  85 
L.Bd.  1132. 

46.  La. — Adler   v.    Board    of   Levee 
Com'rs  of  Orleans  Levee  Dist.,  123 
So.    605,    168    La,    877— Dickey    v. 
Pollock,  App..  183  So.  48. 

"The  citation  itself  is  the  im- 
portant legal  fact  upon  which  the 
validity  of  the  judgment  rests,  while 
the  return  is  simply  evidence  in  re- 
spect to  that  fact.  The  citation  in 
a  case  must  not  be  confounded  with 
the  sheriff's  return,  which  recites 
his  own  actions  in  the  matter  of  the 
service  thereof.  The  citation  may 
be  good,  though  the  return  for  some 
reason  be  irregular;  while  the  re- 
turn may  be  perfect  in  its  recitals, 
yet  the  citation  be  null." — Adler  v. 
Board  of  Levee  Com'rs  of  Orleans 
Levee  Dist.,  123  So.  605,  606,  168  La. 
877. 

47.  Chau— Elliott   v.    Porch,   200    S.E. 
ISO,     59     Ga.App.     181— Benton    v. 
Maddox,    192   S.E.  316,   56  Ga.App. 
132. 

Miss. — Ex  parte  Latham,  136  So.  625, 

1C1  Miss.  243. 
Tex. — Wagner    v.     Urban,    Civ.App., 

170  S.W.2d  270. 
33  C.J.  p  1094  note  83. 

In  absence  of  return  of  service, 
there  is  nothing  to  show,  in  support 
of  Judgment,  that  court  had  juris- 
diction, since  court  should  not  pro- 
ceed in  absence  of  service. — Benton 
v.  Maddox,  192  S.E.  316,  £6  Ga.App. 
132. 

Judgment  is  valid  on  f ace,  where 
return  of  service  is  made  in  manner 
required  by  law. — Hanna  v.  Allen, 
279  P.  1098,  153  Wash.  485. 

48.  Colo. — Gibbs    v.    Slevin,    212    P. 
826.  72  Colo.  690. 


Tex. — Remington-Rand    Business 

Service    v.    Angelo    Printing    Co., 

Civ.App.,  31  S.W.2d  1098. 
Wash. — Title  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Colum- 
bia  Basin    Land    Co.,    238    P.    992, 

136  Wash.  63. 
33  C.J.  p  1094  note  84. 
As     invalidating    default     judgment 

see  infra  §  192. 

A  deputy  sheriff's  individual  re- 
turn to  a  writ  of  summons  directed 
to  his  superior,  is  void,  and  a  judg- 
ment predicated  thereon  is  likewise 
null  and  void. — Stuckert  v.  Thomp- 
son, 164  S.W.  692,  181  Mo.App.  518. 
Inability  to  find  citation 

Proof  that  attorney  was  unable 
to  find  original  citation  in  clerk's  of- 
fice insufficiently  supported  allega- 
tion that  judgment  was  void  for 
want  of  legal  citation. — Thompson- 
Ritchie  Grocery  Co.  v.  Gary,  135  So. 
707,  17  La.App.  270. 
Publication 

Nonresident  defendants,  whose 
post  office  addresses  were  not  shown 
by  proof  of  publication  of  notices 
to  them,  were  not  in  court,  which 
had  no  power  to  render  judgment 
or  apply  testimony  against  them. — 
Sellers  v.  Powell,  152  So.  492,  168 
Miss.  682. 
Substituted  service 

A  return  of  process  disclosing 
substituted  service  is  insufficient  to 
confer  jurisdiction  over  person  of 
defendant  unless  return  affirmative- 
ly shows,  under  strict  construction 
and  unaided  by  reference  to  statute, 
compliance  with  all  essential  re- 
quirements of  statute  authorizing 
such  service.  * 

Mo.— Crabtree  v.  ^2tna  Life  Ins.  Co., 

Ill    S.W.2d    103,    341    Mo.    1173— 

State  ex  rel.  Adler  v.   Ossing,   79 

S.W.2d  255,  SS6  Mo.  391. 
Va.— Washburn   v.   Angle   Hardware 

Co.,  132  S.E.  810,  144  Va.  508. 

49.    Fla. — Walker  v.  Carver,  112  So. 
45,  93  Via.  337. 

65 


Ky. — Commonwealth  ex  rel.  Love  v. 

Reynolds,   146   S.W.2d  41,   284  Ky. 

809. 
La. — Adler  v.  Board  of  Levee  Com'rs 

of  Orleans  Levee  Dist.,  123  So.  605, 

168  La.  877. 
Mo. — McEwen     v.      Sterling      State 

Bank,    5    S.W,2d    702,    222    Mo.App. 

660. 
Ohio. — Paulin   v.    Sparrow,    110   N.E. 

528,  91  Ohio  St.  279. 
Pa.— Podol    v.    Shevlin,    130    A.    264, 

284   Pa.    32 — Wood  v.   Kuhn,   Com. 

PI.,  22  Brie  Co.  236. 
33  C.J.  p  1095  note  85. 

A  ruling-  of  the  court  that  the 
service  was  valid,  even  though  the 
ruling  was  erroneous,  does  not  show 
that  the  court  was  without  jurisdic- 
tion to  proceed  since  it  did  not  ap- 
pear that  service  was  not  waived. — 
Pratt  v.  Rosa  Jarmulowsky  Co.,  170 
S.E.  365,  177  Ga.  522. 
Irregularities  not  affecting-  judg- 
ment 

(1)  Failure    to     file    affidavit    of 
mailing   notice   to    defendant   served 
by  publication,  prior  to  rendition  of 
Judgment. — Young    v.    Campbell.    16 
P.2d  65,  160  Okl.  265. 

(2)  Failure  to  file  proof  of  serv- 
ice on  defendant  outside  state  until 
entry  of  judgment — Winter  v.  Win- 
ter, 175  N.E.  533.  256  N.T.  113.     - 

(3)  Failure    to    show    competency 
of  process  server. — State  v.  Fergus 
County  Tenth  Judicial  Dist.  Ct.,  179 
P.  831,  55  Mont.  602. 

(4)  Other  irregularities  see  33  C. 
J.  p  1091  note  68  [f]. 

50.  N.C.— Dunn  v.  Wilson,  187   S.E. 
802,  210  N.C.  493— Graves  v.  Relds- 
ville  Lodge  No.   2128,   109  S.E.  29. 
182  N.C.  530. 

51.  Tex. — Olton  State  Bank  v.  How- 
ell,  Civ.App.,  105   S.W.2d  2*7. 

52.  U.S. — In   re    Gayle,    C.C.A.Canal 
Zone,    1*36    F.2d    973,    petition    dis- 
missed  64   S.C.   157,   320   U.S.   806, 
88  L-Ed.  4*7. 


26 


JUDGMENTS 


49    O.J.S. 


against  defendant  is  not  validated  by  his  special  ap- 
pearance for  the  purpose  of  objecting  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  court  by  taking  advantage  of  a  fail- 
ure of  notice  or  defective  service,63  or  for  some 
other  special  purpose.54 

By  attorney.  An  appearance  for  defendant  by 
his  authorized  attorney  is  sufficient  to  support  a 
judgment  against  defendant.65  If,  however,  the 
appearance  was  in  fact  unauthorized,  a  judgment 
based  thereon  has  been  held  voidable,56  and  accord- 
ing to  some  decisions  the  judgment  is  wholly  void57 
and  subject  to  collateral  attack,  as  discussed  infra 
§  424.  It  has  been  held  that  a  judgment  rendered 


on  the  appearance  of  an  attorney,  who  has  acted 
without  authority,  is  regular  and  valid,58  the  sole 
remedy  being  an  action  for  damages  against  the 
attorney,  as  discussed  in  Attorney  and  Client  §  147. 
If  there  was  due  service  of  process  sufficient  to 
support  the  judgment,  as  discussed  supra  §  24,  the 
validity  of  the  judgment  is  not  affected  by  lack  of 
authority  of  the  attorney  who  appeared  and  made 
defense.5** 

Appearance  by  plaintiff.  As  a  rule,  if  plaintiff 
fails  or  refuses  to  appear  and  present  his  case,  the 
court  may  dismiss  the  action  for  want  of  prosecu- 
tion, as  explained  in  Dismissal  and  Nonsuit  §  65  a, 


Ala. — Morrison  v.  Covington,  100  So. 
124,  211  Ala.  181. 

Ariz. — Lore  v.  Citizens  Bank  of  Win- 
slow,  75  P.2d  371,  51  Ariz.  191— 
Blair  v.  Blair,  62  P.2d  1821,  48 
Ariz.  501. 

Cal.— -Gray  v.  Hall,  265  P.  246,  203 
Cat  306. 

Ga.— Cherry  v.  McCutchen,  23  S.E.2d 
587,  68  Ga.App.  682. 

Hawaii. — Kim  Poo  Kum  v.  Sugi- 
yama,  33  Hawaii  545. 

Ind. — -Montgomery  v.  .Marks,  46  N.E. 
2d  912,  221  Ind.  223 — Celi-na  Mut 
Casualty  Co.  v.  Baldridge,  12  N.E. 
2d  258,  213  Ind.  198. 

Ky.-^Tones  v.  Fuller,  134  'S.W.2d  240, 
280  'Ky.  671 — Black  v.  Elkhorn 
Coal  Corporation,  26  iS.W.2d  481. 
233  Ky.  588. 

La.— Nolan  v.  Schultze,  126  So.  513, 
169  La.  1022— Gferfin  v.  Brown,  107 
So.  576,  160  La.  790. 

Md. — Piedmont-Mt.  Airy  Guano  Co. 
of  Baltimore  v.  Merritt,  140  A.  62, 
154  Md.  226. 

Mont. — Novack  v.  Pericich,  300  P. 
240,  90  Mont.  91. 

N.Y. — Bauman  Rubber  Co.  v.  Karl 
Light  &  Sons,  244  N.Y.S.  448,  137 
Misc.  258. 

N.C.— Powell  v.  Turpin,  29  S.E.2d 
26,  224  N.C,  67— City  of  Monroe 
v.  Niven,  20  S.E.2d  '311,  221  N.C. 
362— Casey  v.  Barker,  14  S.E.2d 
429,  219  N.C.  465— Dunn  v.  Wilson, 
187  S.E.  802,  210  N.C.  493— Hood 
v.  Holding,  171  S.E.  633,  205  N.C. 
451. 

N.D.— Baird  v.  Ellison,  293  N.W. 
794,  70  NJD.  261. 

Okl. — Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Excise  Board  of  Oklahoma  County, 
33  P.2d  1081,  168  Okl.  428— Protest 
of  Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co., 
2  P.2d  935,  161  Okl.  129— Skipper 
v.  Baer,  277  -P.  930,  136  Okl.  286. 

Or. — (Mt.  Vernon  Nat.  Bank  v,  Morse, 
264  P.  439,  128  Or.  64. 

Pa.— In  re  Komara's  Estate,  166  A. 
577,  311  Pa.  135 — In  re  Gallagher's 
Estate,  167  A.  476,  109  Pa. Super. 
304. 

R.I. — Corpus  Juris  died  la  'Sahagian 
v.  Sahagian,  137  A,  221,  222,  48 
R.I.  267.  i 


Tenn. — Dicfcson  v.  Simpson,  113  S.W. 

2d  1190,  172  Tenn.  680,  116  A.L.R. 

'380 — Commerce     Union     Bank     v. 

'  Sharber,  100  S.W.2d  243,  20  Tenn. 

App.  451. 

Tex.— Pure  Oil  Co.  v.  Reece,  78  S.W. 
2d  932,  124  Tex.  476— State  Mortg. 
Corporation  v.  Traylor,  36  S.W.2d 
440,  120  Tex.  148 — Levy  v.  Roper, 
256  S.W.  251,  =113  Tex.  356— Eaton 
v.  Husted,  Civ.App.,  163  S.W.2d 
439,  affirmed  172  S.W.2d  493,  141 
Tex.  349— Stone  v.  Miller,  Civ.App., 
134  S.W.2d  862,  error  dismissed, 
judgment  correct — Goodman  v. 
Mayer,  Civ.App.,  105  'S.W^d  281, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  128  S. 
W.2d  1156,  1*33  Tex.  319— Coker  v. 
Logan,  Civ.App.,  101  S.W.2d  284, 
error  refused — Glass  v.  Kottwitz, 
Civ.App.,  297  S.W.  573. 

Va. — Lockard  v.  Whitenack,  144  S. 
E.  606,  151  Va.  143— Beck  v.  Sem- 
ones'  Adm'r,  134  S.E.  677,  145  Va. 
429. 

Wis.— Saric  v.  Brlos,  19  N.W.2d  903, 
247  Wis.  400. 

33  C.J.  p  1095  note  89—34  C.J.  p  533 
note  40. 

Appearance  as  validating  judgment: 
Against  nonresident  see  supra  § 

24  e. 

In  action  begun  by: 
Attachment  or  garnishment  see 

supra  §  24  f. 

Substituted  or  constructive  serv- 
ice see  supra  §  24  c. 

Appearance  after  judgment 
Where  a  judgment  in  rem  has  been 

rendered  without  the  appearance  of 

defendant,      his      appearance     after 

judgment  for  the  purpose  of  moving 

for  a  new  trial  does  not  render  the 

judgment  a  personal  one. — Mayfleld 

v.  Bennett,  48  Iowa  194. 

53.  Md. — Ortman  v.  Coane,  31  A.2d 
320,  181   Md.   596,  145  A.L.R.  1388. 

Wash. — State    v.    Plummer,    226    P. 

273,  130  Wash.  135. 
33  C.J.  p  1095  note  93. 

54.  Or. — Cram  v,  Tippery,  155  P.2d 
558. 

litre  physical  presence  by  a  party 
when  a  judgment  is  rendered  against 
him  does  not  make  the  judgment 

66 


binding  on  him,  if  he  had  no  notice 
or  opportunity  to  be  heard. — Elliott 
v.  Adams,  160  S.E.  3*36,  173  Ga.  312. 

55.  Mich. — Hempel    v.    Bay    Circuit 
Judge,    193    N.W.    281,    222    Mich. 
553. 

N.C.— Hood  v.  Holdingf,  171  S.E.  633, 

205  N.C.  451. 
33  C.J.  p  1096  note  94. 
Presumption  of  authority  to  appear 
see  Attorney  and  Client  §  73  a. 
Where    defendants'    attorney    was 
in  open  court  when  plaintiff  request- 
ed leave  to  amend  petition  to  state 
new   cause  of  action,   notwithstand- 
ing   defendants    subsequently    with- 
drew their  answer  and  were  not  cit- 
ed   on    filing    of    amended    petition, 
court     had     jurisdiction     to     render 
judgment    against    them    thereon. — 
Phillips  v.   The  Maccabees,   Tex.Civ. 
App.,  50  S.W.2d  478. 

56.  N.T.— Wiley  v.  Moses,  42  N.T.S. 
2d  4.  266  App.Div.  801,  reargument 
and  appeal  denied  In  re  Less*  Es- 
tate, 44  N.T.S.2d  686,  266  App.Div. 
968. 

33  C.J.  p  1096  note  95. 

Unauthorized  appearance  as   ground 

for: 

Equitable  relief  see  infra  §  354. 
Opening  and  vacating  see  infra  § 
267. 

57.  N.D.— Taylor  v.  Oulie,  212  N.W. 
Wl.  55  N.D.  253. 

Okl.— ^Street  v.  Dexter,  77  P.2d  707, 
182  Okl.  360— Hatfield  v.  Lewis, 
236  P.  611,  110  Okl.  98. 

Tex.-^Stack  v.  Ellis,  Civ.App.,  291 
S.W.  919. 

33  C.J.  p  1096  note  97. 

58.  Miss.— Shirling     v.     Scites,     41 
Miss.  644. 

33  C.J.  p  1096  note  2. 

59.  N.C.— Hatcher  v.  Faison,  55  S.E. 
284,  145  N.C.  364. 

33  C.J.  p  1096  note  1. 
Neither  void  nor  voidable 

Appearance  by  an  unemployed  at- 
torney does  not  make  a  judgment 
void  or  -voidable,  where  the  case 
would  otherwise  go  to  judgment 
since  such  attorney  has  no  power  to 
waive  any  rights. — Lockard  v. 
Whitenack,  144  S.K  606,  151  Va.  143. 


49    O.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  27 


but  it  can  render,  no  judgment  against  plaintiff60 
unless  defendant  has  filed  a  cross  action  or  request, 
ed  affirmative  relief.61  On  the  other  hand,  if  plain- 


tiff appears  and  answers  a  cross  action,  a  judgment 
may  be  entered  thereon,  although  defendant  did  not 
serve  him  with  notice  of  the  cross  action,62 


C.  PARTIES 


§  27.    In  General 

Parties  whose  rights  are  determined  are  essential  to 
a  Judgment. 

An  essential  element,  implied  in  all  the  definitions 
of  a  judgment  which  have  been  given,  is  that  there 
must  be  parties  whose  rights  are  determined  by  the 
adjudication.6*  A  valid  judgment  cannot  be  ren- 
dered where  there  is  a  want  of  necessary  parties,64 
and  a  court  cannot  properly  adjudicate  matters  in- 
volved in  a  suit  when  necessary  and  indispensable 
parties  to  the  proceedings  are  not  before  it65  The 
absence  of  persons  necessary  to  a  complete  settle- 
ment of  the  entire  controversy,  however,  will  not 
prevent  the  rendition  of  a  valid  judgment  where 
their  interests  are  so  separable  that  a  judgment  may 


be  rendered  between  the  parties  before  the  court 
without  affecting  the  rights  of  persons  who  are  not 
parties.66  A  judgment  which  is  a  mere  negation  of 
plaintiff's  asserted  claim  is  not  erroneous  for  want 
of  necessary  parties.67 

In  the  case  of  ex  parte  proceedings  there  are  par- 
ties on  only  one  side,  as  discussed  in  Ex  32  CJ.S. 
p  1145  note  75-p  1146  note  80.  In  the  case  of  pro- 
ceedings in  rem,  the  parties  on  one  side,  at  least, 
consist  merely  in  the  personification  of  a  res,  but  the 
determinations  in  this  class  of  cases  are  nevertheless 
judgments,  as  considered  infra  §  907. 

To  enable  a  judgment  to  be  rendered  the  litigants 
must  have  the  capacity  to  stand  in  judgment68  The 


60.  Tex.— Parr  v.  Chittim,  Com. 
App.,  231  S.W.  1079— Dalton  T. 
Davis,  Civ.App.,  294  S.W.  1115, 
reversed  on  other  grounds,  Com. 
App,  1  S.W.2d  571— -Scarborough 
v.  Bradley,  Civ.App.,  256  S.W.  349. 

61*  Tex.— Wadell  Connally  Hard- 
ware Co.  v.  Brooks,  Civ.App.t  275 
S.W.  168. 

62.  Tex. — Hall  v.  Morton,  Civ.App., 
39  S.W.2d  903,  error  refused. 

63.  Kan.— Corpus    Juris    quoted   in 
City    of    Independence    v.    Hinde- 
nach,    61   P.2d   124,   129,   144   Kan. 
414. 

M0nt— ^State    v.    District    Court    of 
Fifteenth. Judicial  Dist.  in  and  for 
Musselshell  County,  300  P.  235,  89 
Mont  5-31,  82  A.L.R.  1158. 
33  C.J.  P  1105  note  45. 
Amendment  of  judgment  as  to  par- 
ties see  infra  §  244. 
Conformity  to: 
Pleadings  and  proofs  as  to  parties 

see  infra  §  51. 
Verdict  or  findings  as  to  parties 

see  infra  §  56. 

Designation  of  parties  see  infra  5 
75.  t  . 

Parties  to  judgment  by  or  against 
executor  or  administrator  see  Ex- 
ecutors and  Administrators  §  793. 
Advewary  proceedings  required 

Where  real  party  in  interest  is 
both  plaintiff  and  defendant,  no  Is- 
sue is  presented  and  decree  or  judg- 
ment based  on  such  action  is  null 
and  void.— O'Donnell  v.  U.  S.,  C.C.A, 
Cal.,  91  F.2d  14,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  U.  S.  v.  O'Donnell,  58  S.Ct 
708,  303  U.S.  501,  82  Ii.Ed.  980. 
64.  Tex. — Belt  v.  Texas  Co.,  Civ, 
App.,  175  S.W.2d  622,  error  refused 
— Beeier  r.  Loock,  Civ-App^  135 


S.W.2d  644,  error  dismissed— Gen- | 

era!  Exchange  Ins.  Corporation  v. 

Collins,  Civ.App.,  110  S.W.2d  127. 
xreoessary  parties 

Grantee's  heirs  are  necessary  par- 
ties to  enable  court  to  adjudicate 
whether  paper,  in  form  a  deed,  is 
an  absolute  conveyance,  or  only  a 
power  of  attorney.— Wingo  v.  Par- 
ker, 19  S.C.  9. 

65.    Fla. — Fain   v.   Adams,    121    So. 

562,  97  Fla.  517. 
111.— Hansen  v.  Swartz,  178  N.E.  246, 

345  111.  609. 
Mass.— Dietz  v.  New  Tork  Life  Ins. 

Co.,  191  N.E.  875,  287  Mass.  398. 
N.Y.— U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaranty  Co. 

v.    Triborough    Bridge    Authority, 

48  N.T.S.2d  16,  affirmed  59  N.Y.S. 

2d   291,   269   App.Div.    978,   motion 

granted  59  N.Y.S.2d  627,  270  App. 

Div.  754. 
N.D.— Underwood     State     Bank     v. 

Weber,  193  N.W.  602,  49  N.D.  814. 
W.Va.— McDonald  v.  Bennett,  152  S. 

E.  533,  108  W.Va.  666. 
Wis. — Riedel   -v.    Preston,    246   N.W. 

569,  211  Wis.  149. 
Proper  procedure 

The  court  should  require  the  ab- 
sent persons  to  be  made  parties  to 
the  proceeding  or  dismiss  it  with- 
out prejudice.— White  v.  Walker,  10 
S.W.2d  1071,  226  Ky.  326. 
Sum  held  by  stranger 

The  district  court  erred  In  includ- 
ing in  amount  of  money  judgment 
sum  shown  by  parties'  stipulation  to 
be  held  la  Judgment  debtor's  name 
by  corporation  not  party  to  suit 
wherein  judgment  was  rendered. — 
CyMeara  v.  Williams,  Tex.Civ.App,, 
137  S.W.2d  66,  error  dismissed,  Judg- 
ment correct. 

67 


66.  Cal. — Bank    of    California    Nat. 
Ass'n  v.  Superior  Court  in  and  for 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco, 
106   P.2d  879,   16   Cal.2d  516. 

Tex.— State    Mortg.    Corporation    v. 

Garden,  Civ.App.,  11  S.W.2d  212. 
Person  held  not  a  necessary  party 

JSTonresidence  of  party  claiming 
interest  did  not  impair  validity  of 
decree  approving  release  of  rights 
in  estate,  nonresidents  not  being 
necessary  parties  to  decision  of 
question. — Denny  v.  Searles,  148  S.E. 
484,  150  Va.  701. 

67.  Proceeding  to  terminate  rights 
under  deed 

A  judgment  in  an  administrator's 
suit  to  terminate  defendant's  rights 
under  a  deed  from  his  Intestate  is 
not  erroneous  for  want  of  necessary 
parties  because  intestate's  heirs 
were  not  parties  to  the  suit,  where 
it  is  a  mere  negation  of  plaintiff's 
asserted  claim. — Jones  v.  Gibbs,  130 
S.W.2d  265,  133  Tex.  627,  motion 
overruled  T31  S.W.2d  957,  133  Tex. 
627. 

68.  La.— Roe    v.    Caldwell,    70    So. 
548,   138  La.  652— Miles  v.  Recla- 
mation Oil  Producing  Ass'n,  3  La. 
App.  746. 

nprisonment  of  defendant  pending 


civil  suit 
Where,  pending  a  civil  cause,  de- 
fendant is  arrested  and  confined  in 
jail  by  virtue  of  a  warrant  issued 
for  a  criminal  offense  at  the  in- 
stance of  a  third  person  not  in  col- 
lusion with,  or  instigated  by,  plain- 
tiff, plaintiff  is  entitled  to  proceed 
with  his  cause  to  judgment,  and 
such  judgment  will  not  be  set  aside 
as  irregular. — Peterson  v.  C.  A.  Mar- 


§  28 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


rules  governing  judgments  with  respect  to  persons 
under  a  disability  are  discussed  in  Husband  and 
Wife  §§  447-457,  Infants  §§  120-124,  and  Insane 
Persons  §  151.  Also  the  rules  applicable  to  judg- 
ments relative  to  persons  whose  personality  is  or 
has  been  suspended  for  juristic  purposes  are  con- 
sidered in  titles  wherein  the  law  relative  to  such 
persons  is  treated,  such  as  Bankruptcy  §§  489-491, 
Convicts  §  7,  Insolvency  §  17  a  (2),  and  Slaves  § 
7,  also  58  CJ.  p  758  note  59;  and  in  titles  dis- 
cussing particular  kinds  or  classes  of  actions  and 
proceedings  are  considered  the  rules  particularly  ap- 


plicable to  parties  to  judgments  or  decrees  in  such 
actions  or  proceedings. 

§  28.    Judgment  for  or  against  One  Not  a  Par- 
ty 

A  Judgment  can  be  rendered  only  for  or  against  a 
party  to  the  action  or  proceeding  and  not  for  or  agafnct 
one  not  a  party:  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  persons  not 
parties  cannot  be  adjudicated. 

In  general  a  judgment  can  be  taken  only  for  or 
against  a  party  to  the  action  or  proceeding.^  It 
cannot  properly  be  rendered  for  or  against  one  who 
is  not  a  party  thereto,70  or  against  one  who  is  not 


tin  Furniture  Co.,   86  S.B.   1099,   144 
Ga.  316. 

69.  Mont. — Moore    v.     Capital     Gas 
Corp.,  158  P.2d  302. 

Jurisdiction  In  personam  as  essen- 
tial to  validity  of  judgment  see 
supra  §  19. 

Service  or  process  or  appearance  as 
essential  to  validity  of  judgment 
see  supra  §§  23,  26. 

70.  U.S. — Southwell    v.     Robertson, 
D.CPa,,  27  F.Supp.  944. 

Ark.— Bryan  v.  Akers,  7  S.W.2d  32$, 
177  Ark.  681,  58  A.L.R.  1124. 

Cal. — Hutchinson  v.  California  Trust 
Co.,  Ill  P.2d  401,  43  Cal.App.2d 
571— Lloyd  v.  Los  Angeles  County, 
107  P.2d  .622,  41  Cal.App.2d  808— 
Overell  v.  Overell,  64  P.2d  483,  18 
Cal.App.2d  499— Nordin  v.  Eagle 
Rock  State  Bank,  App.,  49  P.2d 
336— McDonald  v.  Richards,  248  P. 
1049,  79  CaLApp.  1. 

Colo. — J.  I.  Case  Threshing  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Packer,  254  P.  779,  81  Colo. 
195. 

Ga. — Webb  &  Martin  v.  Anderson- 
McGriff  Hardware  Co.,  8  S.E.2d 
882,  188  Ga.  291. 

111.— Schrei  v.  Van  Alyea,  247  HL 
App.  440. 

Ind.— Kist  v.  Coughlin,  57  N.E.2d 
586,  222  Ind.  639. 

Ky.— City  of  Hazard  v.  Gay,  113  S. 
W.2d  467,  271  Ky.  818— Farmers' 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Jones,  28  S.W.2d  787, 
234  Ky.  591,  70  A.L.R.  335— Ford 
v.  Consolidated  Grocery  Co.,  17 
S.W.2d  448,  229  Ky.  510. 

La. — Succession  of  Arnold,  152  So. 
•322,  178  La.  658— Erskine  v.  Gard- 
iner, 110  So.  97,  162  La,  83. 

Mich.— Smith  v.  Switzer,  287  N.W. 
416,  290  Mich.  158. 

Neb.— Clark  v.  Clark,  297  N.W.  661, 
139  Neb.  446— Southern  Nebraska 
Power  Co.  v.  Village  of  Deshler, 
264  N.W.  462,  130  Neb.  133. 

N.Y.— Clark  v.  Seligman,  296  N.T.S. 
98,  163  Misc.  533— Quinn  v.  Er- 
showsky,  245  N.T.S.  398,  138  Misc. 
15. 

Ohio. — Eac  parte  Eastman,  155  N.E. 
578,  23  Ohio  App.  2T3. 

Or* — Niedermeyer,  Inc.,  v.  Fehl,  83 
P.2d  960,  148  Or.  16,  followed  In 


Niedermeyer,  Inc.  v.  Pacific  Record 
Pub.  Co.,  33  P.2d  966,  147  Or.  528, 
and  motion  denied  Niedermeyer, 
Inc.,  v.  Fehl,  35  P.2d  477,  148  Or. 
16. 

Pa. — In  re  McGuigan's  Estate,  37  A. 
2d  717,  349  Pa.  581— Chiswell  v. 
Campbell,  150  A.  90,  300  Pa,  68. 

R.I.— Lawton  v.  Fox,  133  A.  348,  47 
R.I.  359. 

Tenn. — American  Nat.  Bank  v.  Brad- 
ford, App.,  188  S.W.2d  971. 

Tex. — Thomas  v.  Mullins,  Civ.App., 
127  S.W.2d  559,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  Mullins  v.  Thomas,  150  S. 
W.2d  83,  136  Tex  215— Edwards 
v.  Hatch,  Civ.App.,  106  S.W.2d  741 
—Baker  v.  Reed,  Civ.Ap&.,  54  S.W. 
2d  214 — Underwood  v.  Jefferson 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  Civ.App.,  35  S. 
W.2d  766 — Cunningham  v.  Koons, 
Civ.App.,  33  S.W.2d  761 — Jessen  v. 
Scott,  Civ.App.,  14  S.W.2d  290— 
Cook  v.  Liberty  Pipe  Line  Co., 
Civ.App.,  281  S.W.  221— Moses  v. 
Chapman,  Civ.App.,  280  S.W.  911 
— Tomerlin  v.  Krause,  Civ.App., 
278  S.W.  501. 

W.Va.— Milam  v.  Settle,  32  S.E.?d 
269. 

33  C.J.  p  1106  note  58. 

Injunction: 

In  federal  court  as  binding  on 
parties  defendant  and  those  rep- 
resented by  them  or  subject  to 
their  control  or  in  privity  with 
them  see  Federal  Courts  §  144  d. 
Not  granted  against  persons  not 
parties  to  suit  see  Injunctions  § 
214. 

Judgment  in: 

Favor  of  partner  not  party  to  ac- 
tion see  the  C.J.S.  title  Partner- 
ship §  235,  also  47  C.J.  p  1011 
note  15. 

Replevin  not  proper  against  one 
not  party  to  action  see  the  C. 
J.S.  title  Replevin  S  242,  also  54 
C.J.  p  588  note  25. 

Necessity  that  judgment  correspond 
to  pleadings  with  respect  to  par- 
ties see  infra  §  51. 

Relief  against  person  not  party  not 
granted  in  mandamus  proceeding 
see  the  C.J.S.  title  Mandamus  § 
341,  also  38  C.J.  p  926  note  12. 

68 


Opportunity  to  "be  heard 

(1)  Person  must  have  opportunity 
of  being  heard  before  court  can  ren- 
der judgment  against  him. 

111.  —  Hansen     v.     Swartz,    178    N.E. 

246,  345  111.  609. 
Mont—  Mitchell   v.    Banking   Corpo- 

ration   of    Montana,    22    P.2d    155, 

94  Mont  183. 

(2)  Notice  and  opportunity  to  be 
heard    before    being    concluded    by 
judgment  as  essential  to  due  proc- 
ess of  law  see  Constitutional  Law 
§§  569  c  (2),  619,  322. 
Unauthorized  proceeding 

(1)  Judgment  is  void  in  action  in- 
stituted   in    plaintiff's    name    by    a 
stranger    without   authority. 

U.S.  —  Hanover  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Isa- 
bel, CC.A.OkL,  129  F.2d  111. 

Okl.—  Steen  v.  Williams,  12  P.2d  888, 
158  OkL  147. 

(2)  Judgment       against       alleged 
ward  on  cross  petition  in  proceeding 
brought  by  alleged  guardian  acting 
under    wholly   void    court    order    is 
erroneous.  —  Ruckert  v.  Moore,  295  S. 
W.  794,  317  Mo.  228. 

(3)  Other  cases  see  33  C.J.  p  1106 
note  58  [e], 

Judgment  for  plaintiff  as  trustee 
for  one  not  a  'party  to  the  action  is 
erroneous.  —  Rush  v.  Curtiss-Wright 
Export  Corporation,  31  N.T.S,2d  550, 
263  App.Div.  69,  appeal  denied  32 
N.Y.S.2d  1016,  263  App.Div.  868. 
motion  denied  41  N.B.2d  173,  287 
N.Y.  849. 
Xodividual  sued  in  representative 


In  suit  against  state  superintend- 
ent of  insurance,  to  recover  a  fund 
in  his  possession  officially,  in  which 
the  superintendent  as  an  individual 
defendant  was  stricken  out,  the  ju**. 
risdiction  of  the  court  is  limited  to 
the  res,  and  it  has  no  power  to 
charge  defendant  with  interest  be- 
yond what  he  actually  received.  — 
Porter  v.  Beha,  D.C.N.Y.,  8  F.2d  65, 
affirmed,  C.C.A.,  12  F.2d  513. 
Unknown  or  wuuuned  parties 

Law  court  cannot  enter  judgment 
for  unknown  and  unnamed  parties, 
nor  has  it  ancillary  jurisdiction  to 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  28 


subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.71  A  judg- 
ment so  given  is  void  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  the 
person  improperly  included  in  it,72  whether  or  not 
such  person  is  sui  juris  or  under  disability,78  and, 
according  to  some  authorities,  is  a  mere  nullity  as 
to  all  the  parties  to  it,74  although  other  cases  hold 
that  it  is  not  void  as  to  those  who  were  actually 
parties  to  the  suit.76  A  judgment  for  one  not 
formally  a  party  has  been  held  proper,  however, 
where  the  case  was  tried  and  the  parties  acted  on 
the  understanding  that  such  person  was  a  party.76 
It  has  been  held  that  mere  service  of  process  on  a 
stranger  to  the  proceedings  will  not  support  a  judg- 
ment against  him.77 


Where  he  is  not  a  party  to  the  action,  judg- 
ment cannot  properly  be  rendered  for  or  against  an  f 
assignor,78  an  employee  in  an  arbitration  proceed- 
ing between  his  employer  and  labor  union,79  an 
insurance  company  in  an  action  against  the  state 
superintendent  of  insurance  in  whose  hands  it  has 
been  placed  for  liquidation,80  an  insurer  of  defend- 
ant, even  though  insurer's  attorney  took  over  the  de-  { 
f ense  and  participated  in  the  trial  as  fully  as  though 
insurer  had  been  a  party,81  .an  officer  of  a  defendant 
county,82  an  officer,  agent,  representative,  or  legal 
assign  of  a  defendant  corporation,83  a  party's  attor- , 
ney,8*  a  witness,86  or  a  member  of  a  class.86    How- 
ever, there  is  authority  which  holds  that,  in  a  rep- 


determine  the  parties  entitled  to  the 
benefit    of    such    a    judgment — Mc- 
Nary  v.  Guaranty  Trust  Co.  of  New 
York,    D.C.Ohio.   <>    F.Supp.    616. 
Judgment  held  not  in  favor  of  one 

•  not?  a  party 

Judgment  that,  as  between  plain- 
tiff and  defendant,  plaintiff  is  liable 
for  payment  of  note  to  bank  is  not 
a  judgment  against  plaintiff  in  favor 
of  the  bank,  which  was  not  a  party 
to  the  action. — Nants  v.  Doherty,  262 
S.W.  979.  203  Ky.  596. 

71.  111. — Austin    v.    Royal    League, 
147   N.B.    106,    316   III.   188. 

N.Y.— NtecAffer   v.    Boston   &  M.   R. 

R.,  197  N.B.  328,   268  N.T.  400. 
Ohio.— Cahill  v.  Fidelity  &  Casualty 

Co.,  175  N.E.  39,  "37  Ohio  App.  444. 
Where  plaintiff  not  in  court 

Judgment  on  merits  cannot  be  ren- 
dered where  action  fails  because  no 
plaintiff  is  in  court  against  whom 
judgment  can  be  rendered. — MacAf- 
fer  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.,  197  N.E. 
328,  268  N.T.  400, 

72.  U.S. — Hanover  Fire  Ins.   Co.  v. 
Isabel,     C.C.A.Okl.,     129    F.2d    111 
— U.  S.  v.  Lee,  D.C.Okl.,  48  F.Supp. 
63. 

Cal. — Pennell  v.  Superior  Court  In 
and  for  Los  Angeles  County,  262 
P.  48.  87  Cal.App.  375. 

111. — Newberry  Library  v.  Board  of 
Education  of  City  of  Chicago,  55 
N.B.2d  147,  387  111.  85. 

Ky. — Chapman  v.  Blackburn,  175 
S.W.2d  26,  295  Ky.  606— Rapp 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Smith,  48  S.W.2d 
17,  243  Ky.  317. 

Mont. — Moore  v.  Capital  Gas  Corp., 
158  P.2d  302. 

N.C.— Powell  v.  Turpin,  29  S.B.2d 
26,  224  N.C.  $7— Downing  v.  White, 
188  S.B.  815,  211  N.C.  40. 

Tenn.— Charles  A.  Hill  &  Co.  v.  Bel- 
mont  Heights  Baptist  Church,  69 
<5.W.2d  612,  17  Tean.App.  603. 

Tex — Shaw  v.  Cunningham,  Civ. 
App.,  42  S.W.2d  685,  error  refused 
— Butman  v.  Jones,  Civ.App.,  24 
aw.2d  796—Lipsitz  v.  First  Nat 
Bank,  CivJLpp.,  288  S.W.  609,  af- 
firmed, Com.App..  293  S.W.  563, 


modified  on  other  grounds  296  S. 
W.  490. 
W.Va.— Russell  v.  Carpenter,  23  S.B. 

2d  920,  125  W.Va.  51. 
33  C:J.  p  1106  note  58. 
Validity  of  judgment  or  decree  for 
or  against  person  not  party  to  par- 
tition proceeding  see  the  C.J.S,  ti- 
tle Partition  §  112,  also  47  C.J.  p 
435  notes  93,  94. 
Bnle  in  misnomer  inapplicable 

-The  rule  that  the  judgment  con- 
cludes the  person  intended  -  to  be 
sued  where  he  is  actually  served 
with  process,  even  under  a  wrong 
name,  is  inapplicable  where  judg- 
ment is  rendered  against  a  person 
not  a  party  to  the  suit — Gofl  v. 
Will  County  Nat  Bldg.  Corporation, 
35  N.B.2d  718,  811  IlLApp.  207. 

73.  Ky.— Proctor  v.  Mitchell,  194  S. 
W.2d  177. 

74.  Colo.— Archuleta    v.    Archuleta, 
123  P.  821,  52  Colo.  601. 

33  C.J.  p  1107  note  59.    - 

75.  Mo. — Pacific     Express .   Co.     Y. 
Bmerson,  74  S.W.  132,  101  Mo.App. 
62. 

33-  C.J.  p  1107  note  60. 
7ft,    Wash.— Bleiler  v.  Wolff,  161  P. 
2d  145,  23  Wash.2d  368. 

77.  Ga. — Shearouse  v.  Wolfe,   86  S. 
B.  923,  111  Ga.  859. 

33  C.J.  p  1106  note  58  [b]. 

78.  U.S.— Illinois  Surety  Co.   v.   U. 
S.,  C.C.,  36  S.Ct  321,  240  U.S.  214, 
60  L.Ed.  609. 

79.  N.T.— Steinberg  v.  D.  L.  Horo- 
witz,   Inc.,    25    N.Y.S.2d    630,    261 
App.Div.  1380. 

80.  U.S. — Southwell    v.    Robertson, 
D.C.Pa.,  27  F.Supp.  944. 

81.  Tex.— Rio  Grande  Valley   Tele- 
phone  Co.    v.    Hocut,   Civ.App.,    93 
S.W.2d   167,    error   dismissed. 

82.  Gal. — Lloyd     v.     Los     Angeles 
County,  107  P.2d  622,   41  CaLApp. 
2d  808. 

83.  Tefc. — Toakura  Mill  &  Elevator 
Co.   v.    Byars,    Civ. App.,    262   5.W. 
.226. 

84.  Cal.— Sullivan    v.    Gage.    79    P. 

69 


537,  145  Cal.  770— In  re  Levinson's  , 
Estate,   41   P.   483,   42   P.    479,   108 
Cal.  450— Overell  v.  Overell,  64  P. 
2d  483,  18  Cal.App.2d  499— Pennell  | 
v.  -Superior  Court  in  and  for  Los 
Angeles  County,  262  P.  48,  87  Cal. 
App.    375 — Chavez    v.    Scully,    216 
P.  46,  62  CaLApp.  6.  j 

Attorney's  right  to  summary  reme- 
dy in  cause  for  payment  of  fees 
earned  therein  see  Attorney  and 
Client  §  194. 

85.  Pa.— Bell  v.  Feeney,  Cora.PL,  59 
Montg.Co.  279. 

86.  N.C.— Williams  v.  Williams,   74 
N.C.  1. 

33C.J.  pl!06  note  58  [f]. 
Judgment  for  member 

(1)  In    representative    action    on 
behalf  of  all  similarly  situated,  only 
those   named  as  plaintiffs  and  who 
enter    the    action    before    judgment 
may    share   in    recovery. — Atkins    v. ; 
Trowbridge,  148  N.Y.S.  181,  162  App. 
Div.  629— Hendry  v.  Title  Guarantee 
&    Trust    Co.,    300    N.Y.S.    741,    165 
Misc.  349,  modified  on  other  grounds 
8    N.Y.S.2d    164,    255    App.Div.    497,' 
affirmed  21  NJB.2d  515,  280  N.Y.  740. 

(2)  In  class   suit  under  Fair.  La- 
bor' Standards  Act  by  employee  as 
representative  of  class  of  employees 
to   which  he  belongs,   no  judgment 
could    be    entered   in    favor   of   any 
employee  against  employer  for  any 
specific  sum  of.  money  unless  such 
employee  was  either  a  party  to  the 
suit,    or    had    expressly    designated 
some   one  to   represent   him.  in   the 
suit,  or  bad  intervened  in  the  suit 
— Brooks   v.   Southern  Dairies,   D.C. 
Fla.,  38  F.Supp.  588. 

Judgment  against  member 

(1)  The  equitable  doctrine  of  class 
representation  does  not  permit  a 
plaintiff  to  designate  certain  par- 
ties as  representatives  of  other  nu- 
merous members  of  a  voluntary  un- 
incorporated association  in  order 
to  obtain  personal  -judgments  as  to 
members  not  named.— Webb  &  Mar- 
tin v.  Anderson-McGriff  Hardware 
Co.,  3  S.E.2d  882,  188  Ga.  291.  ., 


§  28 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


resentative  or  class  suit,  where  tihose  joined  as  par- 
ties fairly  represent  those*  not  joined,  and  their  in- 
terests are  the  same,  a  judgment  entered  as  in  a 
class  suit  will  be  binding  on  all  members  of  the 
class.*? 

In  general  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  persons  not 
parties  to  the  action  cannot  be  adjudicated  there- 
in,*8  since  a  court  should  not  adjudicate  the  rights 


or  liabilities  of  a  person  unless  he  is  actually  or 
constructively  before  it89  Title  to  property  of  one 
not  a  party  may  not  be  determined,90  or  a  lien  es- 
tablished and. foreclosed  against  one  not  a  party,91 
or  the  right  to  the  proceeds  of  taxes  levied  to  pay 
bonds  determined  in  a  suit  to  which  bondholders 
are  not  parties,92  or  a  contract  with  one  not  a  party 


(2)  In  bondholder's  suit  to  enforce 
trust  and  alleged  lien  against  state 
and  numerous  owners  of  lands, 
where  such  owners  were  designated 
as  a  class  but  not  actually  made 
parties,  the  court  had  no  jurisdic- 
tion to  enter  decree  against  them 
or  their  lands. — State  v.  Woodruff, 
150  So.  760,  170  Miss.  744. 

87.  111. — Newberry  Library  v.  Board 
of  Education  of  City  of  Chicago, 
55   N.E.2d   147,   387   111.    85. 
Persons    hound    by    Judgment    by 

reason  of  privity  or  representation, 
although  not  formal  parties,  may  be 
subjected  to  the  judgment  by  rule. 
—Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Schmidt, 
Ky.,  20  S.Ct  620,  177  U.S.  230,  44  L. 
Ed.  747. 

Administrators  acting1  as  plaintiffs 
.  Where  in  suit  by  stockholders  the 
recovery  was  purely  representative, 
it  was  held  immaterial  that  certain 
of  the  plaintiffs  held  only  as  admin- 
istrators.— 'Stearns  Coal  &  Lumber 
Co.  v.  Van  Winkle,  C.C.A.Ky.,  221 
P.  590,  137  C.C.A.  314,  certiorari  de- 
nied -36  SXJt  554,  241  U.S.  670,  60 
L.Ed.  1230. 

88,  U;6. — Dewalt     v.     State     Farm 
Mut.      Automobile      Ins.     Co.      of 
Bloomington,  111.,  C.C.A.MO.,   99  7. 
2d    846,     certiorari    denied    State 
Farm  Mut.  Automobile  Ins.  Co.  of 
Bloomington,    111.    v.    Dewalt,    59 
S.Ct    583,    306    U.S.    644,    88    L.Ed. 
1043. 

Ala. — Continental    Ins.    Co.    of   New 

York  v.  Rotholz,  133   So.  587.  222 

Ala.  574. 
CaL— Potter  v,  Lawton,   5   P.2d  904, 

118  CaLApp.  558— Moakley  v.  Los 

Angeles  Pac.  Ky.  Co.,   277  P.  883, 

99  CaLApp.  74— O'Neil  v.  Ross,  277 

P.  123,  98  CaLApp.  306. 
Conn. — Lunde  v.  Minch,   136  A.  552, 

105  Conn.  657. 
Fla. — Coral    Bealty   Co.    v.    Peacock 

Holding  Co.,  1*38  So.  622,  103  Fla. 

916. 
Ga. — Ware  County  v.  Cason,  5  S.E.2d 

597,  61  Ga.App.  15. 
Karf.— Kansas    Utilities   Co.    v.    City 

of    Burlington,    44    P.2d    223,    141 

Kan.   926,   appeal   dismissed  56   S. 

Ct.  81,  296  U.S.  658,  80  KEO.  469. 
Mass. — Bancroft  v.  Cook,  162  N.B. 

691,  264  Mass.  343. 
Mich.— Royal    Oak    Tp.    v.    City    of 

Ferndale,  15  K,W.2d  707,  309  Mich. 

458 — Capitol  -Savings   &  Loan  Co. 

v.  Standard  Savings  &  Loan  Ass'n 


of  Detroit,  Mich.,  250  N.W.  309, 
264  Mich.  550— Washburn  v. 
Waite,  250  N.W.  306,  264  Mich. 
557. 

Mo. — Jenkins  v.  John  Taylor  Dry 
Goods  Co.,  179  S.W.2d  54,  352  Mo. 
660 — McClure  v.  Wilson,  App.,  185 
S.W.2d  878— Hocken  v.  Allstate 
Ins.  Co.,  147  S.W.2d  182,  235  Mo. 
App.  991 — Stevens  v.  Hurley,  279 
S.W.  723,  220  Mo.App.  1050. 

N.J. — Trenton  Potteries  Co.  v.  Black- 
well,  43  A.2d  831,  137  N.J.Eq.  113 
— Breitman  v.  Jaehnal,  132  A.  291, 
99  N.J.Eq.  243,  affirmed  Breitman 
v.  Jaehnel,  135  A.  915,  100  N.J.Eo;. 
559. 

N.M.— Scudder  v.  Hart,  110  P.2d  536, 
45  N.M.  76. 

N.T.— Sunshine  v.  Marsh,  38  N.T.S. 
2d  562,  265  App.Div.  927,  affirmed 
50  N.E.2d  105,  290  N.Y.  775— Nor- 
man v.  General  American  Transp. 
Corporation,  47  N.T.S.2d  390,  181 
Misc:  233,  affirmed  45  N.Y.S.2d 
929,  267  App.Div.  758. 

Ohio. — National  Surety  Co.  v.  Bohn, 
182  N.E.  506,  125  Ohio  St  537. 

Okl.— Town  of  Buffalo  v.  Walker,  257 
P.  766,  126  Okl.  -6. 

Pa.< — 'Pleska  v.  Farley,  Com.Pl.,  40 
Lack.Jur.  152. 

S.C.— Holt  v.  Calhoun,  179  S.E.  501, 
175  S.C.  481. 

S.D.— Boots  v.  Null,  238  N.W.  307, 
59  S.D.  109. 

Tex — General  Exchange  Ins.  Cor- 
poration v.  Young,  Civ.App.,  143 
S.W.2d  805— Sparks  v.  Mince,  Civ. 
App.,  138  S.W.2d  203— Beeler  v. 
Loock,  Civ.App.,  135  S.W.2d  644, 
error  dismissed — Employers'  Lia- 
bility Assur.  Corporation  v.  Neely, 
Civ.App.,  60  S.W.2d  836,  error  dis- 
missed—•'Stewart  v.  Rockdale  State 
Bank,  Civ.App.,  52  S.W.2d  915,  af- 
firmed 79  S.W.2d  116,  124  Tex.  431 
—Scaly  v.  Scott,  Civ.App.,  11  S.W. 
2d  605. 

Utah. — Tanner  v.  Provo  Reservoir 
Co.,  103  P.2d  134,  99  Utah  158. 

Wash.— Bayha  v.  Public  Utility  Dist. 
No.  1  of  Grays  Harbor  County,  97 
P.2d  614,  2  Washed  85— Cooney 
v.  Cooney,  8  P.2d  540,  164  Wash. 
553. 

Wis. — Madden  Bros.  v.  Jacobs,  235 
N.W.  780,  204  Wis.  376. 

Adjudication  in  partition  proceeding 
of  rights  of  person  not  party 
thereto  see  the  C.J.S.  title  Parti- 

70 


'tion  §  112,  also  47  C.J.  p  4*35  note 
92. 

In  proceeding  in: 
Admiralty  see  Admiralty  §  157. 
Equity  see  Equity  §  601. 
Judgment    as    binding    only    parties 
and  privies   see  infra   §§    762-821. 
Persons     subject    to     ouster     under 
judgment  of  ejectment  see  Eject- 
ment §  122  e. 

Rights  of  persons  not  parties  not 
determined  in  mandamus  pro- 
ceeding see  the  C.J.S.  title  Man- 
damus §  334,  also  38  C.J.  p  923 
note  53. 
Cannot  divest  rights 

When  a  person  is  not  made  a  party 
to  the  suit,  the  court  has  no  juris- 
diction to  divest  him  of  a  vested 
right— Alward  v.  Borah,  44  N.E.2d 
865,  381  111.  134. 
Establishment  of  parish  boundary 

In  hypothecary  action  involving 
land  alleged  by  defendants  to  be 
situated  in  another  parish  than  that 
in  which  suit,  to  which  neither  par- 
ish was  party,  was  brought,  decree 
cannot  establish  boundary  between 
parishes. — Commercial  Bank  v. 
Meaux,  La.App.,  158  So.  688, 

Judgment's  effect  on  third  person 
not  party  to  the  action  will  not  be 
determined  by  the  court  rendering 
it— Williams  v.  Pease,  43  P.2d  22, 
181  Wash.  388—33  C.J.  p  1106  note 
58  [a]  (2). 

89.  D.C. — Ducker  v.   Butler,    104   P. 
2d  236,  70  App.D.C.  103. 

La.— Collins  v.   Cliff  Oil  &  Gas  Co., 

App.,  177  So.  120. 
Wash.— Bayha  v.  Public  Utility  Dist. 

No.  1  of  Grays  Harbor  County,  97 

P.2d  614,  2  Wash.2d  85. 

90.  Gal. — City    of    Los    Angeles    v. 
Knapp,  70  P.2d  643,  22  Cal.App.2d 
211. 

La. — Esparros  v.  Vicknair,  17  So.2d 
924,  205  La.  699. 

91.  Tex. — Gholson       v.       Northside 
Chevrolet  Co.,  Civ.App.,   90  S.W.2d 
579. 

92.  U.S. — Boynton  v.  Moffat  Tunnel 
Improvement  Dist,  C.C.A.Colo.,  57 
F.2d  772,   certiorari  denied  Moffat 
Tunnel      Improvement      Dist.      v. 
Boynton,  53  S.Ct.  20,  287  U.S.  620, 
77  L.Ed.  638— St  Louis-San  Fran- 
cisco  Ry.  Co.  v.  Blake,  C.C.A.Okl., 
36  F.2d  652. 

Colo. — Denver  Land  Co.  v.  Moffat 
Tunnel  Imp.  Dist,  284  P.  339,  87 
Colo.  1. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


29 


to  the  action  rescinded,93  or  a  note  or  note  and 
mortgage  canceled  as  to  a  person  who  is  not  a 
party  to  the  action,94  or  a  lien  claim  released  as  to 
members  of  a  class  who  did  not  join  as  plaintiffs  in 
the  proceeding,95  or  a  deed  set  aside  where  all  per- 
sons interested  are  not  parties  to  the  proceeding,96 
or  a  sale  of  property  of  one  not  a  party  to  the  ac- 
tion ordered,97  even  though  the  owner  is  a  corpo- 
ration owned  by  another  corporation  whose  shares 
are  in  suit.98  However,  the  validity  of  mortgage 
bonds  owned  by  cross  defendants  dismissed  from 
the  action  may  be  adjudicated  where  the  plaintiff  in 
the  action  represents  cross  defendants  as  a  trustee 
of  such  bonds.99  Specific  performance  will  not  be 
decreed  against  a  person  not  a  party  to  the  pro- 
ceeding.1 A  judgment  against  a  person  attempted 
to  be  made  a  party  by  motion  after  the  conclusion 
of  the  trial  is  erroneous.2 

§  29.    Death  of  Party 

a.  In  general 

b.  Joint  parties 

a.  In  General 
Ordinarily    a    judgment    rendered    subsequent    to    a 


party's  death  Is  erroneous.  If  the  party  died  prior  to 
the  commencement  of  the  action  the  judgment  is  abso- 
lutely void,  if  he  died  subsequent  to  its  institution  the 
judgment  is  generally  held  to  be  voidable,  but  if  he  died 
after  verdict  or  decision  the  Judgment  is  generally  held 
toH>e  valid. 

Ordinarily  a  judgment  should  not  be  entered  for 
or  against  a  party  after  his  death  ;3  and  if  the  ac- 
tion is  continued  or  revived  thereafter  the  judg- 
ment should  be  for  or  against  his  representative.4 
A  judgment  for  or  against  a  person  who  was  dead 
at  the  time  the  action  was  instituted  is  at  least  er- 
roneous.5 If  the  defendant  was  dead  at  the  time 
the  action  was  commenced  the  judgment  will  be  ab- 
solutely void;6  and  like  rule  has  been  applied  where 
one  named  as  plaintiff  died  before  commencement  of 
the  action,7  although  there  is  other  authority  which 
holds  that  a  judgment  rendered  in  an  action  begun 
after  plaintiff's  death  is  not  void  but  voidable.8 

Where  the  court  has  acquired  jurisdiction  of  the 
subject  matter  and  the  person  during  the  lifetime 
of  a  party,  the  prevailing  rule  is  that  a  judgment 
rendered  for  or  against  him  after  his  death,  al- 
though erroneous  and  liable  to  be  set  aside,  is  not 
void  but  voidable  ;9  but  there  is  substantial  author- 
ity to  the  effect  that  such  a  judgment  is  absolutely 


93.  Term.— Hawkins  v.  Byrn,  261  S. 
W.  980.  150  Term.  1. 

94.  Ark.— Peebles  Garage  v.  Down- 
ey, 111  S.W.2d  454,  195  Ark.  31. 

Wis.— In  re  Peterson's  Estate,  8  N. 
W.2d  266,  242  Wis.  448. 

Want  of  necessary  parties  as  pre- 
cluding: Judgment  or  decree  of  can- 
cellation see  Cancellation  of  In- 
struments §  52. 

95.  Idaho.— Brown    v.    Twin    Falls 
Canal    Co.,    276    P.    305,    47    Idaho 
402. 

d&  Conn.— Delaney  v.  Kennaugh, 
186  A.  108,  105  Conn.  557. 

Mich.— Goldberg  v.  Goldberg,  295  N. 
W.  194,  295  Mich.  380. 

Necessary  parties  in  action  to  quiet 
title  see  the  C.J.S.  title  Quieting 
Title  §  53,  also  51  C.J.  p  206  note 
18-p  208  note  41. 

Validity  of  Judgment  in  action  to 
quiet  title  where  owners  of  land 
not  parties  see  the  C.J.S.  title 
Quieting  Title  S  103,  also  51  C.J. 
p  282  note  25. 

97.  U.S. — Gammon  v.  Ramsey,  C.C. 
A.N.J.,  13  F.2d  743. 

Wyo.— State  v.  District  Court  of 
Ninth  Judicial  Dist.  in  and  for 
Fremont  County,  292  P.  897,  42 
Wyo.  214,  71  A.L.R.  993,  substitu- 
tion of  parties  denied  1  P.2d  74, 
4-3  Wyo.  173. 

96.  U.S. — Gammon  v.   Ramsey,  C.C. 
A.N.J.,  18  F.2d  74"3. 

99.  Tex.— Fidelity  Trust  Co.  of 
Houston  v.  Highland  Farms  Cor- 


poration,     Civ.App.,      109      S.W.2d 
1014,  error  dismissed. 

1.  B.C. — Thalis    v.    Wurdeman,    121 
F.2d    70,    73    APP.D.C.    322. 

Decree  in  proceeding  for  specific  per- 
formance not  operative  as  to  per- 
son not  party  or  privy  to  pro- 
ceeding see  the  C.J.S.  title  Specific 
Performance  §  168,  also  58  C.J.  p 
1273  notes  25-26. 

2.  Tex.— Rio    Grande    Valley    Tele- 
phone   Co.   v.   Hocut,    Civ.App.,    93 
S.W.2d  167,  error  dismissed. 

33  C.J.  p  1106  note  58  [c]. 

3.  N.T.— In  re  Van  Nostrand's  Will, 
29  N.Y.S.2d  857,  177  Misc.  1. 

Pa. — Bautsch  to  Use  of  Schlear  v. 
Bubbenmoyer,  Com.Pl.,  32  Berks 
Co.L.J.  233. 

4.  Pa.— Aiken  v.    Use   of  Mayberry 
v.   Mayberry,   198  A.    874,   128   Pa. 
Super.  15. 

Erroneous  determination,  as  to  per- 
son in  whose  name  the  action  should 
be  revived  was  held  not  to  render 
judgment  void. — Griffin  v.  Proctor, 
14  So.2d  116,  244  Ala.  537. 
Failure  to  make  substitution  error 

Where  parties  to  suit  died  before 
entry  of  decree  failure  to  make  sub- 
stitution for  them  was  error. — Smith 
v.  Schmitt,  231  P.  176.  112  Or.  687. 

5.  N.C. — Hinkle  v.  Walker,  197  S.E. 
129,  213  N.C.  657. 

6.  CaL — Conlin  v.  Blanchard,  28  P. 
2d  12,  219  CaL  632 — In  re  Parsell's 
Estate,  213   ?.  40,  190  Cal.  454,  25 
A.L.R.  1561— Jones  v.  Walker,  118 

71 


P.2d  299,  47  Oal.App,2d  566 — Cor- 
pus  Juris  cited  in  Garrison  v. 
Blanchard,  16  P.2d  273,  274,  127 
CaLApp.  616 — Hogan  v.  Superior 
Court  of  California  in  and  for 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco, 
241  P.  584,  74  CaLApp.  704. 

Conn. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in 
O'Leary  v.  Waterbury  Title  Co., 
166  A.  673,  676,  117  Conn.  39. 

HI. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  State 
Bank  of  Prairie  du  Hocher  v. 
Brown,  263  IlLApp.  312,  315. 

Mo. — State  ex  rel.  Jacobs  v.  Trimble, 
274  S.W.  1075,  310  Mo.  150— Wicoff 
v.  Moore,  257  S.W.  474. 

Tex. — Bdens  v.  Grogan  Cochran 
Lumber  Co.,  Civ.App.,  172  S.W.2d 
730,  error  refused — State  Mortg. 
Corporation  v.  Affleck,  Civ.App.,  27 
S.W.2d  548,  reversed  on  other 
grounds,  Com.App.,  61  S.W.2d  274. 

Va.— Rennolds  v.  Williams,  136  S.E. 
597,  147  Va.  196. 

33  C.J.  p  1108  note  69— «4  C.J.  p 
555  note  70. 

7.  Minn. — Poupore  v.  Stone-Ordean- 
Wells  Co.,  157  N.W.  648,  132  Minn. 
409. 

Pa. — Lynch  v.  Kerns,  10  Phila.  335. 

8.  W.Va.— McMillan  v.,  Hickman,  14 
S.B.  227,  85  W.Va,  705. 

33  C.J.  p  1109  note  71—34  C.J.  p  555 
note  69. 

9.  U.S.— Corpus      Juris      cited     in 
Streeter  v.  Chicago  Title  &  Trust 
Co.,  D.C.ni.,  14  F.2d  331. 

Cal. — Liuzza  v.  Bell,  104  P.2d  1095, 
40  CaLApP<2d  417— Corpus  Juris 


29 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


void,10  even  though  the  party  died  after  trial.11  If, 
however,  plaintiff12  or  defendant1*  dies  after  ver- 
dict or  decision  it  is. generally  held  that  a  proper 
and  valid  judgment  may  be  rendered  on  the  verdict 
or  decision.  Also  under  statutes  expressly  so  pro- 
viding a  valid  judgment  may  properly  be  entered 
in  cases  where  a  party  dies  after  verdict,  decision, 
or  report,  or  after  an  accepted  offer  to  allow  judg- 
ment to  be  taken.14  Although  such  statutes  have 
been  held  to  be  in  derogation  of  the  common  law,16 
they  have  also  been  declared  to  be  declaratory  of 
the  common  law,  which  never  allows  a  delay  by 
the  court  to  change  the  condition  of  a  suit.1*  A 
judgment  rendered  subsequent  to  the  death  of  a 
party  after  verdict  or  decision  may  properly  be 
entered  mine  pro  tune  as  of  the  date  of  the  verdict 
or  decision,  as  considered  infra  §  118;  and  in  ju- 


risdictions where  a  judgment  rendered  after  the 
death  of  a  party  by  a  court  which  has  acquired  ju- 
risdiction of  the  parties  and  subject  matter  is  not 
void  but  voidable,  a  judgment  entered  as  of  the 
actual  date  when  rendered,  at  a  time  subsequent  to 
plaintiffs  death  after  verdict  or  decision,  is  not 
void.17  Under  a  statute  authorizing  a  judgment 
subsequent  to  a  party's  death  after  verdict  or  de- 
cision if  the  court  renders  its  opinion  and  directs 
judgment  in  plaintiff's  favor  prior  to  defendant's 
death  it  may,  after  defendant's  death,  order  the 
findings  filed  nunc  pro  tune  as  of  the  date  of  the 
opinion,  as  considered  in  the  CJ.S.  title  Trial  § 
645,  also  64  C.J.  p  1271  note  78,  and  enter  judgment 
against  decedent  on  such  findings  ;18  or,  if  no  find- 
ings are  required  because  the  case  was  submitted 
on  an  agreed  statement  of  facts,  the  court  may  ren- 


oited  in  Garrison  v.  Blanchard.  16 
P.2d  273,  274,  127  Gal.App.  616— 
Hogan  v.  -Superior  Court  of  Cali- 
fornia in  and  for  City  and  County 
of  San  Francisco,  241  P.  584,  74 
CaLApp.  704. 

Ky.— Mosely  v.  Morgan,  252  S.W. 
117,  199  Ky.  845. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Adams 
v.  Carson,  25  P.2d  653,  657,  165 
Okl.  161. 

Pa.— Klemstine  v.  Allen,  16  PaJ>ist 
&  Co.  221. 

Tex.— -Garcia  v.  Jones.  Civ.App.,  155 
S.W.2d  671,  error  refused. 

33  C.J.  p  1107  note  68— 34  C.J.  p  555 
note  67. 

Effect  of  death  of  party  on  admiral- 
ty proceeding  see  Admiralty  5  97. 

10.  Ala. — Griffin  v.  Proctor,  14  So. 
2d  116,  244  Ala.  8*  7— Corpus  Jtu 
ris  cited  in  Martin  v.  Cothran,  200 
So.  609,  610,  240  Ala.  619— Corpus 
Juris  cited  in  McDonald  v.  Wo- 
mack,  107  So.  812,  818,  214  Ala. 
309. 

La.— West  v.  Green,  131  So.  595,  15 
La.  App.  216. 

Mo.— De  Hatre  v.  Ruenpohl,  108  S. 
.W.2d  357,  341  Mo.  749,  transfer- 
red, see,  App.,  123  S.W.2d  243*- 
Carter  v.  Burns,  61  S.W.2d  933,  332 
.  Mo.  1128 — Cole  v.  Farkei>Wash- 
ington  Co.,  207  S.W.  749,  276.  Mo. 
220,  -overruling  State  v.  Riley,  118 
S.W.  647,  219  Mo.  667,  and  Coleman 
v.  McAnulty,  16  Mo.  173,  57  Am. 
D.  229. 

N.Y. — In  re  Hirnschall's  Estate,  265 
N.Y.S,  36,  147  Misc.  897. 

33  C.J.  P  1107  note  66—34  C.J.  p  555 
note  68. 

Abatement  and  revival  after  death 
of  party  see  Abatement  and  Re- 
vival §5  114-186. 

Effect  of  dissolution  of  corporation 
on  judgment  for  or  against  it  see 
Corporations  .§§  17!35-1786. 

afiortrar*  foreclosure 

N.J.— In  re  Admiral  Sampson  Bldg. 


&  Loan  Ass'n  of  Newark,  41  A.2d 

378,  136  N.J.EQ;.  292. 
Successor  in.  interest 

Judgment  rendered  after  death  of 
party  should  not  bind  those  suc- 
ceeding to  rights  of  action  or  prop- 
erty of  deceased. — MacAffer  v.  Bos- 
ton &  M.  R.  R.,  197  N.E.  328,  268 
N.Y.  400. 

11.  La.— West  v.  Green,  131  So.  595, 
15  La~kpp.  216. 

Judgment  for  costs 
Kan. — Jones  v.   Jones,  167  P.2d  634, 
161  Kan.  284. 

12.  W.Va Lively  v.  Griffith,  99  S. 

E.  512,  84  W.Va,  393. 

33  C.J.  p  1109  note  72. 

13.  Or.— Adams  v.   Perry.   Ill  P«2d 
838,  168  Or.  132. 

33  C.J.  p  1109  note  74. 

14.  Cal. — Fox   T.    Hale   &  Norcross 
Silver  Min.  Co.,  41  P.  328,  108  Cal. 
478— Liuzza  v.  Bell,  104  P.2d  1095, 
40  Cal.App.2d  417— Copp  T.  Rives, 
217   P.    813,   62   CaLApp.    776. 

Mo. — In   re   Thomasson,    159    S.W.2d 

626 — Homer  v.  Nicholson,  56  Mo. 

220. 
N.Y.— In  re  Taylor's  Estate,  33  N.Y. 

S.2d  584,  178  Misc.  217. 
Va.— Green's    Ex'rs    v.    Smith,    132 

S.E.    839,    146    Va.   442,    44   A.L.R. 

1175. 
33  C.J.  p  1109  note  75—34  C.J.  p  76 

note  67  [a]. 
Purpose  of  statute 

(1)  Its  purpose  is  to  permit  entry 
of  judgment  where  merits  of  contro- 
versy have,  in  substance,  been  pass- 
ed on  before  death  of  party. — Davis 
v.    Ross,    20   N.Y.S.2d    375,    259    App. 
Div.  577,  reargument  denied  21  N.Y. 
S.2d   391,    259   App.Div.   1029— In  .re 
Taylor's   WiU,   33   N.Y.S.2d   584,   178 
Misc.    217— Nicholson    v.    McMullen, 
28   N.Y.S.2d  287,  176   Misc.   693. 

(2)  It  was  never  intended  to  al- 
low    a     judgment     to     be     entered 
against    deceased    which    could    not 

72 


have  been  entered  in  his  lifetime. — 
Nicholson  v.  McMullen,  supra. 
Actions   to   which   applicable 

(1)  The   statute  applies   generally 
to  all  ordinary  civil  actions,  whether 
involving  equitable  or  legal  rights. 
--State  v.  Stratton,  19  S.W.  803,  110 
Mo.  426. 

(2)  The  statute  applies  only  to  ac- 
tions not  abating  on  death. — Grotsch 
v.  KGassey,  231  N.Y.S.  469,  133  Misc. 
373— J34   C.J.  p  76  note   67    [a]    (1), 
(3). 

Accepted  offer  to  allow  Judgment 

A  judgment  by  default  is  not  an 
"accepted  offer  to  allow  judgment." 
—Nicholson  v.  McMullen,  28  N.Y.S. 
2d  287,  176  Misc.  693. 

Verdict,  decision,  or  report  held 
made  i 

N.Y.— Davis  ,v.  Ross,  20  N.Y.S.2d 
375,  259  App.Div.  577,  reargument 
denied  21  N.Y.S.2d  391,  259  App. 
Div.  1029— In  re  Taylor's  Will,  33 
N.Y.S.2d  584,  178  Misc.  217. 

Judgment  held  act  proper 

(1)  Generally. — Nicholson    v.    Me-. 
Mullen,    28   N.Y.S.2d  287,   176   Misc. 
693. 

(2)  Where  facts  concerning  alleg- 
ed settlement  were  in  dispute. — (Mer- 
rill v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  282  N.Y. 
S.  574,  246  App.Div.  541. 

15.  N.Y.— -Nicholson     v.     McMullen, 
28  N.Y.S.2d  287,  17$  Misc.   693. 

16.  Mo. — Homer    v.    Nicholson,    §6 
Mo.  220. 

S3  C.J.  p  1109  note  76. 

17.  Mass.— Reid     v.     Holmes,     1*7 
Mass.  326. 

33  C.J.  p  1109  note  78. 

18.  Cal. — Fox   v.    Hale   &  Norcross 
Silver    Min.    Co.,    41    P.    328,    108 
CaL    478— Copp    v.    Rives,    217    P. 
813,  62  Gal.App.  776. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


29 


der  judgment  .after  defendant's  death  where  it  was 
submitted  prior  thereto.19 

A  judgment  entered  nunc  pro  tune  after  the  death 
of  plaintiff  and  at  a  time  when  a  substitution  of 
parties  for  decedent  had  not  been  made  has  been 
held  void.20 .  In  some  jurisdictions  where  defendant 
dies  before  judgment  the  court  is  without  juris- 
diction as  to  him  until  the  action  is  revived  and  his 
representatives  are  brought  before  the  court,21  and 
in  other  jurisdictions  service  of  notice  on  all  per- 
sons interested  in  the  estate  of  the  deceased  defend- 
ant is  prerequisite  to  a  valid  judgment.22 

A  judgment  erroneous  because  rendered  for  or 
against  a  dead  person  may  be  reversed  on  appeal  if 
that  fact  appears  on  the  record.2^  If  such  fact 
must  be. shown  by  evidence  aliunde,  the  remedy  is 
by  writ  of  error  coram  nobis,  or  by  motion  or  peti- 
tion in  the  cause.24  The  right  to  impeach  in  a  col- 
lateral proceeding  a  judgment  rendered  subsequent 
to  the  death  of  a  party  is  considered  infra  §  419. 

Terminated  trust.  A  judgment  cannot  bestow  on 
retiring  trustees  of  a  terminated  testamentary  trust 
continuing  power  to  control  and  manage  the  real 
estate  of  the  trust,25  even  though  all  the  benefici- 
aries under  the  will  acquiesced  in  or  expressly  con- 
sented thereto.26 

b.  Joint  Parties 

Whether  or  not  a  judgment  for  or  against  Joint  par- 
ties, rendered  after  the  death  of  one  of  them,  Is  void  or 
voidable  depends  on  the  rule  followed  In  the  particular 


jurisdiction  as  to  the  effect  of  the  death  of  a  party  be- 
fore  judgment,  and  on  whether  or  not  the  judgment  Is 
an  entirety. 

Under  the  rule,  considered  infra  §  33  b,  that  a 
judgment  for  or  against  several  parties  is  an  en- 
tirety and  either  good  or  bad  as  a  whole,  and  where, 
as  discussed  supra  subdivision  a  of  this  section,  the 
death  of  a  party  before  judgment  renders  the  judg-  ! 
ment  void,  a  judgment  for  or  against  several  parties 
jointly  after  the  death  of  one  of  them  is  void  as  to 
all  of  them;27  but  where  such  death  renders  the 
judgment  merely  erroneous  and  voidable,  a  judg- 
ment for  or  against  several  parties  jointly  after  the 
death  of  one  of  them,  while  not  void,  is  erroneous 
and  voidable  as  to  all  of  them.28  On  the  other 
hand,  in  jurisdictions  where  a  judgment  for  or 
against  several  parties  is  not  necessarily  good  or 
bad  as  an  entirety,  considered  infra  §  33  b,  the 
death  of  one  of  such  parties  before  judgment  will 
render  the  judgment  void,29  or  merely  erroneous 
and  voidable,30  as  to  such  deceased  party,  according 
to  the  locally  prevailing  rule,  considered  supra  sub- 
division a  of  this  section;  but  it  will  not  affect  the 
validity  or  regularity  of  the  judgment  as  to  thfc 
other  parties.81 

In  jurisdictions  where  judgment  may  be  taken 
for  or  against  one  or  more  of  several  defendants, 
judgment  may  be  taken  against  the  surviving  de- 
fendant or  defendants  in  an  action  against  several 
defendants,  one  or  more  of  whom  dies  prior  to 
judgment.32  The  rule  that  judgment  may  be  ren- 
dered against  a  party  who  dies  after  verdict  but 


19.  Cal. — Copp   v.   Rives,    supra. 

20.  Cal. — Boyd  v.   Lancaster,   90   P. 
2d  317,   32  Cal.App.2d  574— Maacon 
v.  Avery,  89  P.2d  684,  32  CaLApp. 
2d   300— Scoville   v.   Keglor,   80  P. 
2d   162,    27  Cal.App.2d  17. 

21.  Ky.— "Murphy    v.    Blackburn,    16 
S.W.2d  771,  229  Ky.  109. 

22.  Me. — Consolidated         Rendering 
.    Co.  v.  Martin,  145  A.  896,  128  Me. 
1    96,  64  A.L.R.  790— Trask  v.  Trask, 

3  A.   37,   78   Me.  103— Bridgham  v. 
Prince,  33  Me.  174. 

23.  Cal.— Liuzza    v.    Bell,    104    P.2d 
1095,    40    Cal.App.2d   417— Boyd  v. 
Lancaster,  90  P.2d  317,  82  CaLApp. 
2d  574. 

La. — Muller  v.   Davis-Wood  Lumber 

Co.,   2  La.App.  359. 
33  C.J.  p  1109  note  77. 
Judgment  for  heir 

Judgment  against  lessee  in  favor 
of  lessors  individually  and  as  heir 
at  law  of  a  deceased  lessor  is  error, 
where  Jt  appears  of  record  that  les- 
sor died  after  filing  of  suit  and  there 
was  neither  pleading  nor  proof  as 
to  condition  of  deceased's  estate  or 
that  administration  was  pending,  or 


that  none  was  necessary. — Levine  v. 
Finfcelstein,  Tex.Civ.App.,  80  S.W. 
2d  360. 

24.     HI.— Claflin   v.    Dunne,    21   N.E. 
834,    129   111.   241,    16   Am.S.R.   263. 
33  C.J.  p  1110  note  78. 
Judgment     subsequent     to     party's 

death  as  ground  for: 
Motion  or  petition  to  vacate  judg- 
ment: 

Generally  see  infra  §   276. 
By  confession  see  infra  5  323. 
Writ  of  error  coram  nobis  see  in- 
fra $  312. 

25-    N.Y.— In    re    Miller's   Will,    178 
N.B.  555,  2&7  N.Y.  349. 

26.  N.Y.— In  re  Miller's  Will,  supra, 

27.  La. — McCloskey  v.  Wingfield,  29 
La.Ann.  141. 

33  C.J.  p  1110  note  82. 
Judgment  after  death  of  principal  in 
action  against  principal  and  sure- 
ty see  the  C.J.S.  title  Principal 
and  Surety  §  277,  also  50  C.J.  p 
223*  notes  5-6. 

Judgment  by  confession  -against 
several  parties  jointly,  .rendered  aft- 
er the  death  of  one,  of  them,  is  void 
as  to  all. — State  Bank  of  Prairie  du 
Rocher  v.  Brown,  263  Ill.App.  312. 


28.  111.— Claflin    v.    Dunne,    21    N.B: 
834,    129   111.    241,    16   Am.S;R.    263. 

33  C.J.  p  1101  note  84. 
Bringing-  in  representatives 

In  action  claiming  undivided  inter- 
est in  land,  there  could.be  no  proper 
judgment  as  to  all  defendants  after 
death  of  one  defendant  subsequent 
to  submission  of  case  without,  bring- 
ing In  deceased's  representatives. — 
Murphy  v.  Blackburn,  16  S.W.2d  771, 
229  Ky.  109. 

29.  N.Y.— Hawkes  -v.   Clatty,  107  3ST. 
T.S,   534,   122  App.Div.  546,  ; 

30.  Ohio. — Swasey    v.'    Antram, '  24 
Ohio  St.  87.       '  , 

33  C.J.  p  1110  note  87." 

31*  Ga. — Sanders  v. ,  Etcherson,  96 
Ga,  404— Hardwick  v.  Hatfleld,  119 
S-B.  430,  30  Ga.App.  7$0. 

33  C.J.  p  1110  note  89. 

Death  of  costipulator  as  not.  affect- 
ing right  to  judgment  against 
stipulator  in  admiralty  proceeding 
see  Admiralty  I  161. 

32.  Cal, — Sham  v.  Forbes,  23  P. 
198,  82  Cal.  577— Howe  v.  Chand- 
ler, 1  Cat  167.  "  .-,]"".. 


30 


JUDGMENTS 


49    O.J.S. 


before  judgment  has  been  applied  where  one  of  two 
joint  parties  die  after  verdict33  In  an  action  by 
several  plaintiffs,  the  death  of  a  plaintiff  whose 
cause  of  action  dies  with  him  does  not  abridge  the 
court's  right  to  enter  judgment  in  favor  of  the 
surviving  plaintiffs.34  Plaintiff  is  not  entitled  to 
judgment  against  a  defendant  as  to  whom  the  ven- 
ue was  proper  only  during  the  time  a  codefendant, 
who  died  during  the  pendency  of  the  action  without 
its  revival  against  his  administrator,  was  a  party 
to  the  action.35 

§  30.    Joint  Parties 

Under  the  codes  and  practice  acts  the  Judgment 
may  determine  the  ultimate  rights  of  all  parties. 

Under  various  codes  and  practice  acts  the  court, 
in  rendering  judgment,  may  determine  the  ultimate 
rights  of  all  the  parties  to  the  controversy,36  and 
may  render  as  many  judgments,  joint,  separate,  and 
cross,  as  may  be  necessary  to  adjust  the  rights  of 
the  several  parties.87 

§  31.    Plaintiffs  Generally 

At  common  law  where  several  plaintiffs  Join  in  an 
action  all  must  recover  or  none;  but  under  the  various 
statutes  and  practice  acts  Judgment  is  authorized  in  fa- 
vor of  such  plaintiffs,  as  show  themselves  entitled  to  re- 
cover, although  others  fail. 

At  common  law,  and  in  the  absence  of  statute 
changing  the  rule,  where  several  plaintiffs  join  in  a 


common-law  action,  all  must  recover  or  none,  and 
if  only  some  of  the  plaintiffs  have  a  right  of  ac- 
tion, the  suit  must  fail  as  to  all.38  The  rule  ap- 
plies to  actions  on  obligations  alleged  to  be  due 
plaintiffs  jointly,39  and  in  some  jurisdictions  has 
been  limited  to  actions  in  which  plaintiffs  assert  a 
joint  right  or  title.40  It  has  been  applied  to  ac- 
tions ex  contractu  in  which  a  joint  obligation  or  in- 
debtedness to  all  plaintiffs  is  alleged,4*  to  actions 
for  contribution,42  and  to  actions  to  recover  land 
in  which  a  joint  title  is  alleged  in  the  plaintiffs,43 
such  as  actions  in  ejectment.44  Qn  the  other  hand, 
judgment  has  been  permitted  in  favor  of  fewer  than 
all  the  plaintiffs  in  actions  founded  on  tort,  as  an 
action  for  conversion,45  in  proceedings  to  cancel  a 
chattel  mortgage,46  and  in  ejectment  where  the 
plaintiff  entitled  to  recover  is  trustee  of  his  co- 
plaintiffs47  or  where  a  plaintiffs  right  to  recover 
is  barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations.48 

Under  the  various  codes  and  practice  acts  judg- 
ment is  authorized  in  favor  of  any  plaintiff  who 
shows  himself  entitled,  although  the  others  may 
fail,49  as  where  the  claims  of  the  several  plaintiffs 
are  distinct,  although  sufficiently  united  by  a  com- 
mon interest  to  authorize  their  joinder  in  a  single 
suit;50  and,  even  though  the  coplaintiffs  are  enti- 
tled to  share  in  the  recovery,  a  judgment  awarding 
the  entire  recovery  to  one  plaintiff  alone  is  not 


33.  N.T.— Long:  V.    Stafford,    8   N.E. 
522,  103  N.Y.  274. 

84  C.J.  p   76  note  67   [a]    (5). 

34.  Cal.— Liuzza   v.    Bell,    104    P.2d 
1095,  40  Cal.App.2d  417. 

35.  Ark.— Murrell       v.       Exchange 
Bank,    271   S.W.   21,   168   Ark.    645, 
44  A.L.R.  1391. 

36.  Neb.— Whaley  v.  Matthews,  287 
N.W.  205,  1-86  Neb.  767, 

Death  of  one  Joint  party  see  supra 
5  29. 

37.  Miss.— Aven  v.  -Singleton,  96  So. 
165,  132  Miss.  256. 

38.  Ala.— Sharpe    v.    McCloud,    199 
So.  848,  240  Ala.  499. 

Fla. — Sahlberg  v.  J.  A.  Teague  Fur- 
niture Co.,  130  So.  432,  100  Fla. 
972. 

Oa. — Powell  v.  Porter,  5  S.B.2d  884, 
189  Ga.  440. ' 

HI.— Misek  v.  Village  of  La  Grange, 
239  I11.APP.  360. 

Mo.— Tore  v.  Tore,  144  S.W.  847,  240 
Mo.  451. 

33  C.J.  p  1110  note  92. 

Conformity  to  pleadings  with  re- 
spect to  parties  see  Infra  §  51. 

38.  Mo.— Dietrich  v.  Mothershead, 
App.,'150  S.W.2d  565— McLaran  v. 
Wilhelm,  50  Mo.App.  658. 


40.  Ala.— Henderson  v.  J.  B.  Brown 
Co.,  28  So.  79,  125  Ala.  566. 

33  C.J.  p  1110  note  92  [a]. 

41.  Fla,— Sahlberg  v.   J.  A.   Teague 
Furniture  Co.,  130  So.  482,  100  Fla. 
972— Edgar  v.  Bacon,  122  So.  107, 
97  Fla.  679. 

42.  Ala. — Gafford  V.  Tittle,   141  So. 
653,  224  Ala.  605. 

Mo.— Tore    v.    Tore,    144    S.W.    847, 
240  Mo.  451. 

43.  Ga£ — Guess  v.   Morgan,   26  S.E. 
2d    424,    196    Ga.    265— Powell    v. 
Porter,   5   S.E.2d   884,  189   Ga.   440 
— Burton  v.  Patton,  1*34  S.E.  603, 
162  Ga.  610. 

44.  Ala.— Sharpe    v.    McCloud,    199 
So.    848,   240   Ala.   499— McLeod   v. 
Adams,  118  So.  636,  218  Ala.  424— 
Crow  v.  Smith,  92  So.  905,  207  Ala. 
311— Salter  v.  Fox,  67  So.  1006,  191 
Ala.    34— Whitlow    v.    Echols,    78 
Ala.  206. 

Ga. — Guess  v.  Morgan,  26  S.E.2d  424, 

196  Ga.  265. 
19  C.J.  p  1092  note  2,  p  1217  note  50. 

45.  Mo.— Walker    v.    Lewis,    124    S. 
W.  567,  140  Mo.App.  26. 

46.  Mo. — Harrety   v.    Kontos,    App., 
184  S.W.2d  195. 

47.  Ind.— Adler   v.    Sewell,    29   Ind. 
598. 

74 


48.  Ga.— Pendergrast  v.  Gullatt,  10 
Ga.  218. 

49.  Cal.— Liuzza   v.    Bell,    104    P.2d 
1095,  40  Cal.App.2d  417— Wiseman 
v.  -Sklar,  285  P.  1081,  104  CaLApp. 
369— Curtis  v.  Nye  &  Nissen,  261 
P.  747,  86  CaLApp.  507. 

Ind. — Rohan    v.    Gehring,    137    N.E. 

288,  80  IndApp.  46. 
Miss. — Aven  v.  Singleton,  96  So.  165, 

132  Miss.  256. 
Neb.— Hoffman  v.   Geiger,    279   N.W. 

350,  1<34  Neb.  643,  modified  on  oth- 
er grounds  281  N.W.  625,  135  Neb. 

349. 
Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  City  of 

Sapulpa  v.  Toung,  296  P.  418,  430, 

147  Okl.  179. 
Tex — South    Dakota^Texas    Oil    Co. 

v.   Hackworth,  Civ.App.,    248   S.W. 

813,  error  dismissed. 
33  C.J.  p  1110  note  93. 
Equitable  precedents  controlling 

The  code  provisions  are  in  sub- 
stance enactments  of  rules  of  equi- 
ty pleading  and  practice  and  equita- 
ble precedents  control  their  con- 
struction or  effect. — Bonde  v.  Stern, 
14  N.W.2d  249,  73  N.D.  273. 

50.  Okl. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Toung,  296  P. 
418,  430,  147  Okl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1111  note  94. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


void.51  The  authorization  for  such  a  judgment  has 
been  held  to  apply  in  all  actions,  whether  in  law  or 
equity,52  and  in  actions  ex  contractu53  and  in  eject- 
ment.54 In  equity,  the  common-law  rule  has  no 
application,  and  a  decree  may  be  rendered  for  one 
or  more  joint  plaintiffs  and  against  others,  as  jus- 
tice and  equity  in  the  particular  case  may  require, 
as  discussed  in  Equity  §  601. 

A  judgment  against,  coplaintiffs  is  void  as  to  a 
plaintiff  over  whom  the  court  does  not  have  juris- 
diction;55 but  in  jurisdictions  where  a  judgment  is 
not  regarded  as  an  entirety,  which  is  either  good  or 
bad  as  to  all,  the  invalidity  of  a  judgment  as  to  one 
of  two  or  more  coplaintiffs  against  whom  it  is  ren- 
dered will  not  vitiate  it  as  to  the  others.56  Where 
an  action  should  have  been  dismissed  as  to  one  of 
two  defendants  on  plaintiff's  motion  therefor,  it  has 
been  held  that  a  judgment  entered  on  the  other  de- 
fendant's cross  bill  cannot  determine  issues  between 
plaintiff  and  the  defendant  as  to  whom  the  action 
should  have  been  dismissed.57 

Joint  or  several  judgment;  separate  judgments. 
A  judgment  in  favor  of  joint  plaintiffs  should  be 
joint  if  their  cause  of  action  is  joint;58  but  if  their 
cause  of  action  is  several  the  judgment  should  be 
several.^9  Thus  a  joint  recovery  on  separate,  sev- 
eral, and  independent  causes  of  action  in  favor  of 
separate  plaintiffs  is  improper;60  in  such  case  a 
judgment  which  does  not  preserve  the  separate 
rights  of  each  in  the  total  recovery  is  illegal.61 
However,  the  failure  to  designate  the  amount 


awarded  to  each  of  the  plaintiffs  has  been  held  .not 
to  be  error  where  only  one  plaintiffs  cause  was 
actually  tried  and  the  judgment  is  for  plaintiff,  in 
the  singular.62  In  some  jurisdictions  a  judgment 
which  does  not  dispose  of  the  case  as  to  all  the 
plaintiffs  is  erroneous;63  but  under  some  statutes 
the  common-law  restriction  against  the  rendition  of 
more  than  one  judgment  in  an  action  has  been 
changed  so  as  to  permit  the  rendition  of  as  many 
separate  judgments  as  are  necessary  to  adjust  the 
rights  of  the  several  plaintiffs.64 

§  32.    Relief  as  between  Coplaintiffs 

Under  various  statutes  a  judgment  determining  the 
ultimate  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  as  between  themselves 
is  authorized. 

Under  the  statutes  and  practice  acts  in  a  num- 
ber of  jurisdictions  the  judgment  may  determine 
the  ultimate  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  as  between 
themselves.65 

§  33.    Defendants  Generally 

a.  In  general 

b.  Entirety  of  judgment 

c.  Process  against  joint  defendants 

a.  In  General 

The  common -law  rule  requiring  Judgment  fn  an  ac- 
tion against  several  defendants  to  be  against  all  or  none 
has  generally  been  changed  by  statute  so  as  to  permit 
judgment  against  some  or  all  of  the  defendants. 

*^a 
At  common  law,  and  in  the  absence  of  statute 


51.  Tex.— Chandler  v.  Stewart,  Civ. 
AppM    90    S.W,2d    590,    error    dis- 
missed. 

52.  N.D.— Bonde  v.  Stern,  14  N.W.2d 
249,  73  N.D.  273. 

53.  Ind.— Rohan  v.  Gehring,  137  N. 
E.  288,  80  Ind.App.  46. 

N.Y. — Comerford  v.  Fahy  Market, 
198  N.T.S.  3-53,  204  App.Div.  533. 

54.  Tenn. — Ferguson  v.  Prince,  190 
S.W.  548, 136  Tenn.  543. 

19  C.J.  p  1092  note  1,  p  1217  notes 
51  [b],  52. 

66.    Cal.— Tracy  v.  Maclntyre,  84  P. 

2d   526,    29   Cal.App.2d   145. 
Plaintiff  not  notified 

A  judgment  against  coplaintiffs 
for  attorney  fees  of  an  attorney  dis- 
missed on  a  motion  to  substitute  at- 
torneys is  void  as  to  a  plaintiff  who 
was  not  notified  of  and  did  not  ap- 
pear at  the  hearing  on  the  motion. — 
Tracy  v.  Maclntyre,  supra. 

66.  CaL — Tracy  v.  Maclntyre,  su- 
pra, 

57.  U.S.— «auter  v.  First  Nat  Bank, 
C.C.A.I11.,  8  F.2d  121. 

Effect  of  dismissal  or  nonsuit  on  de- 
fendant's right  to  affirmative  re- 


lief see  Dismissal  and  Nonsuit  § 
39  b. 

Plaintiff's  right  to  dismiss  as  to  one 
or  more  codefendants  see  Dismiss- 
al and  Nonsuit  §§  30-32. 
58,    Ind. — Wheeler    v.    Hawkins,    19 

N.B.  470,  116  Ind.  515. 
33  C.J.  p  1126  note  22. 
$9.    Cal. — Emery  v.  Pacific  Employ- 
ers  Ins.  Co.,   67  P.2d   1046,  8  Cal. 
2d  663. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  22. 
Action  under  Pair  labor  Standards 

Act 

In  action  by  employees  on  behalf 
of  themselves  and  other  employees 
similarly  situated  to  recover  over- 
time compensation  under  Fair  Labor 
Standards  Act,  a  joint  judgment  may 
not  be  had. — Smith  v.  Stark  Truck- 
Ing,  D.C.Ohio,  53  F.Supp.  826. 
60.  Teac. — First  Nat  Bank  v.  Cros- 

sett,  Civ.App.,  268  S.W.  997. 
Wyo. — Taylor   v.   Stockwell,    145    P. 
743,  22  Wyo.  492,  rehearing  denied 
147  P.  3-28,  22  Wyo.  492. 
33  C.J.  p  1111  note  94  [a]. 

«L  N.J.— Musto  v.  Mitchell,  146  A. 
212,  105  NJT.Law  575— Wilson  v. 
Deschner,  167  A.  670,  11  N.J.Miac, 

75 


609 — Warner  v.  Public  Service  Co- 
ordinated Transport,  153  A..  711,  9 
N.J.Misc.  328. 

62.  N.J.— Melber   v.    Great  Atlantic 
&  Pacific  Tea  Co.,  167  A.   746,   11 
N.J.Misc.  635. 

63.  Colo.— -Shaw   v.    Brady,    251    P. 
532,  80  Colo.  337. 

64.  Miss. — Aven  v.  Singleton,  96  So. 
165,  132  Miss.  256. 

Rendition     of    separate     judgments 
against  several  defendants  see  in- 
fra §  36  c. 
Plaintiff  suing  ia  double  capacity 

Where  same  party  suing  Individ* 
ually  and  as  administratrix  in  one 
action  recovers  both  for  death  ben- 
efits payable  to  her  and  sick  bene- 
fits payable  to  decedent,  judgments 
for  the  death  benefits  should  be  en- 
tered in  her  own  name,  and  judff^ 
ment  for  sick  benefits  entered  sepa* 
rately  in  her  representative  capaci- 
ty.—Wallace  v.  Patriotic  Order  Sons 
of  America,  Washington  Camp  No. 
50,  189  A.  712,  125  Pa, Super.  268. 

66.    Cal.-— Curtis   v.   Nye   &   Nissen, 

261  P.  747,  '86  Cal.App.  507.      * 
In  eaulty  see  Equity  $603. 


33 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


changing  the  rule,  if  several  defendants  are  joined 
in  an  action  recovery  ordinarily  must  be  for  or 
-  against  all  or  none,66  at  least  in  an  action  in  which 
the  liability  asserted  is  joint67  In  many  states, 
however,  under  the  codes  and  practice  acts  therein 
or  authorized  rules  of  court,  judgment  may  be  given 
for  or  against  one  or  more  of  several  defendants, 
and  in  an  action  against  several  defendants  the 
court  may  in  its  discretion  render  judgment  against 
one  or  more  of  them,  leaving  the  action  to  proceed 
against  the  others  whenever  a  several  judgment  is 
proper.68  Such  statutes  were  intended  to  create  a 
common  procedure  for  both  actions  ex  contractu 
and  ex  delicto,69  and  to  apply  to  all  actions  founded 
on  contract  the  same  rule  with  regard  to  the  right 
of  recovery  against  some  of  the  defendants  which 
prevails  at  common  law  in  the  case  of  actions  found- 
ed on  torts,70  or,  as  some  authorities  say,  to  adopt 
the  rule  prevailing  in  equity  as  to  joint  defend- 
ants.71 

Under  such  statutes  the  court  possesses  chancery 
powers  and  may  adapt  its  judgment  to  the  rights  of 


the  parties  as  found  from  the  facts  established  from 
the  evidence.72  If  a  plaintiff  sues  two  or  more  de- 
fendants on  a  liability  alleged  to  be  joint,  or  joint  - 
and  several,  he  is  no  longer  compelled  to  establish 
a  joint  cause  of  action  against  all,  but  a  judgment 
may  be  taken  against  the  party  or  parties  shown  to 
be  liable,  when  the  others  are  not  liable,78  and  in 
favor  of  defendant  or  defendants  found  not  liable.74 
Plaintiff  is  not  required  to  elect  before  completion 
of  the  trial  whether  he  will  ask  for  a  joint  judgment 
against  all  the  defendants  sued  or  a  several  judg- 
ment against  one  of  them.75 

A  statute  which  authorizes  judgment  against  such 
defendants  as  are  defaulted  or  on  trial  are  found 
liable  has  been  held  not  to  enable  the  court,  on 
sustaining  a  demurrer  as  to  one  defendant,  to  pro- 
ceed to  trial  and  enter  judgment  against  the  re- 
maining defendants.76  Since  an  amendment  cannot 
be  made  which  effects  an  entire  change  of  parties 
defendant,  as  discussed  in  the  CJ.S.  title  Parties  §§ 
72,  85,  also  47  CJ.  p  131  note  28,  p  161  note  20- 
p  162  note  37,  if  plaintiff  is  not  entitled  to  recover 


66.  Fla. — Harrington     v.     Bowman, 
US  So.  651,  106  Fla.  86. 

67.  Pa. — Bauman  v.   Blttner,   33  A. 
2d  273.   152   Pa.Super.   628. 

68.  Ala.— Pollard  v.  Rogers,  173  So. 
881,  234  Ala,  92. 

Ariz. — Bracker  Stores  v.  Wilson,  103 

P.2d  253,  55  Ariz.  403. 
Cal.— Trans-Pacific    Trading    Co.    v. 

Patsy  Frock  &  Romper  Co.,  209 
i  P.  357,  189  Cal.  509— Weisz  v.  Mc- 
1  See,  87  P.2d  379,  31  Cal.App.2d 
1  144,  rehearing  denied  88  P.2d  200, 

31  Cal.App.2d  144. 
Colo.— Beatty    v.    Resler,    118    P.2d 

1084,  108  Colo.  434. 
Conn. — Woodruff  v.   Perroti,    122   A, 

452,  99  Conn.  639. 
Ind.— Fidelity     &     Deposit     Co.     of 

Maryland  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  199 

N.E.  169,  101  Ind.App.  301. 
Mich. — Rimmele  v.  Huebner,  157  N. 

W.  10,  190  Mich.  247. 
Neb.— Whaley  v.   Matthews,   287   N. 

W.^205,  136  Neb.  767. 
N.J. — Ordinary  of  State  v.  Bastian,  5 

AJ2d  463,  17  N.J.Misc.  105. 
NT.— Reeve  v.  Cromwell,   237  N.T. 

S.  20,  227  App.Div.  32. 
OkL— Corpus   Juris   quoted  in  City 

of  Sapulpa  v.  .Young,  296  P.  418, 

431,.  147  Okl.  179. 
Or, — Anderson    y.    Maloney,    225    P. 

318,  111  Or.  84— Fischer  v.  Bayer, 

216   P.    1028,   108   Or.  311. 
Tex. — Shaw    v.    Whitfleld,    Civ.App., 
.  3-5  S.W.2d  1115— Collins  v.  Stiiger, 

CivJVjpp.,  253  S.W.  572. 
S3  C.J.  p  1115  note  21. 
Additional  defendants 

The  statute  applies  to  additional 
defendants  brought  on  the  record  by 
scir-e  facias  proceeding-  where  "the 


original  defendant  alleges  that  they 
are  Jointly  liable  with  him.— Carroll 
v.  Kirk,  19  A.2d  584,  144  Pa.Super. 
211. 

69.  Ark. — OBerryman       v.       Cudahy 
Packing    Co.,    87    S.W.2d    21,    191 
Ark.  533. 

70.  Ind.— Brandt    v.    Hall,    82    N.E. 
929,  40  Ind.App.  651. 

33  C.J.  p  1117  note  25. 
Common-law  rule  in  actions  of: 

Contract  see  infra  §  34. 

Tort  see  infra  §  35. 

71.  N.D.— Bonde  v.   Stern,   14  N.W. 
2d  249,  73  N.D.  273. 

33  C.J.  p  1117  note  26. 

72.  Cal. — Fageol    Truck     &    Coach 
Co.  v.  Pacific  Indemnity  Co.,.  117  P. 
2d  669,  18  Cal.2d  748. 

Ind.— Fidelity     &    Deposit     Co.     of 
Maryland  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  199 
N.B.   169,    101   Ind.App.  301. 
Differentiation    of    liability    of    de- 
fendants 

In  action  against  principal  and 
guarantor  who  did  not  guarantee  en- 
tire debt,  judgment  which  allowed 
greater  recovery  against  principal 
than  against  guarantor  was  not 
duplicitous. — Baten  v.  Thornhill,  Tex. 
Civ.App.,  145  S.W.2d  608,  srror  re- 
fused. 
Where  only  one  satisfaction .  per. 

mitted 

(1)  Decree  ordering  enforcement 
of  mortgage  debt  out  of  various 
properties  of  different  defendants 
but  providing  for  only  one  satisfac- 
tion of  the  debt  was  not  contradic- 
tory.— Gray  v.  First  Nat.  Bank  of 
Chicago,  51  N;R2d  797,  320  IlLApp. 

76 


682,    reversed   on    other    grounds   57 
N.B.2d  363,  388  111.  124. 

(2)  Judgment  permitting  note 
holder  to  recover  from  maker  and 
maker's  debtor  was  not  objectiona- 
ble as  allowing  double  recovery, 
where  judgment  provided  for  credit- 
ing maker  with  amount  collected 
from  his  debtor.  —  J.  C.  Whaley  Dum- 
ber Co.  v.  Citizens'  Nat  Bank  of 
Lubbock,  Tex.Civ.App.,  57  S.W.2d 
637. 

73.    Ga.  —  Farley  v.   Groover,  3  S.E. 

2d  135,  60  Ga.App.  169. 
Iowa.  —  Lull  v.  Anamosa  Nat.  Bank, 

81  N.W.  784,  110  Iowa  -537. 
La,—  Raphiel    v.    Louisiana    Ry.    & 

Nav.  Co.,  99  So.  459,  155  La.  590. 
Mass.  —  Mackintosh  v.  Chambers,  190 

N.E.  38,  285  Mass.  594. 
Nev.  —  Ward  v.  -Scheeline  Banking-  & 

Trust  Co.,  22  P.2d  358,  54  Nev.  442. 
Or.  —  Fischer  v.  Bayer,  210  P.  453, 

108  Or.  311. 
Vt—  C.  B.  Johnson  &  Co.  v.  Marsh, 

15  A.2d  577,  111  Vt.  266,  131  AJU 

R.  '502—  F.  S.  Fuller  &  Co.  v.  Mor- 

rison, 169  A.   9,  106  Vt.  22. 
33  C.J.  p  1115  note  24. 
In  actions  against  partners  see  the 

C.J.S.  title  Partnership  §  235,  also 

47  C.J.  p  1010  note  l-s>  1011  note 

11. 


74.    Mo.—  Wippler  v.  Hohn,  110 

2d  409,  341  Mo.  780: 
33  £.J.  p  1127  note  26. 


76.    Mich.  —  Rimmele      v.      Huebner, 
157  N.W.  1$,  190  Mich.  247. 

76.    Mass.—  Riley  v.  Burns,  22  NJEB. 
2d  761,  304  Mass.  15. 


49    O.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  33 


against  the  original  defendant  judgment  cannot  be 
had  against  a  new  defendant  brought  into  the  case, 
unless  he  consents  thereto.77 

Abatement  as  to  some  of  defendants.  In  an  ac- 
tion against  several  defendants  on  a  joint  obliga- 
tion a  judgment  in  abatement  in  favor  of  one  of 
the  defendants  on  his  plea  of  privilege  as  to  venue, 
applicable  to  himself  alone,  has  been  held  to  be  er- 
toneous.78 

b.  Entirety  of  Judgment 

In  some  jurisdictions  a  judgment  against  several  de- 
fendants is  an  entirety,  and  if  erroneous  or  void  as  to 
any  of  them  is  equally  so  as  to  all;  but  In  other  Ju- 
risdictions the  rule  I*  otherwise. 

According  to  some  authorities  a  judgment  against 
two  or  more  defendants  jointly  is  regarded  as  an 
entirety,79  whether  rendered  in  a  contract  or  tort 
action,80  so  that,  if  it  is  irregular  or  erroneous81 
or  void82  as  to  any  of  the  defendants,  it  is  equally 
so  as  to  all.  According  to  other  authorities,  how- 
ever, a  judgment  against  two  or  more  defendants 
is  not  regarded  as  an  entirety,8^  and  a  judgment 
may  be  valid  and  enforceable  as  to  one  or  some  of 
defendants,  although  voidable  or  void  as  to  oth- 
ers,84 at  least  in  actions  ex  delicto.85  Decisions 
even  within  the  same  jurisdiction  are  sometimes  in 


conflict  as  to  the  entirety  of  judgments.88  In  some 
of  the  decisions  it  has  been  stated  that  the  com- 
mon-law rule  that  judgments  are  entireties  is  ef- 
fective only  in  exceptional  cases,87  that  the  rule 
has  been  relaxed  in  some  cases  in  the  interest  of 
justice  where  error  is  found  as  to  one  party  only,88 
and  that  the  rule  is  not  applicable  to  judgments  in 
actions  in  rem.89 

c.  Process  against  Joint  Defendants 

(1)  In  general 

(2)  Resident  and  nonresident  joint  de- 

fendants 

(3)  Statutory  joint  judgment 

(4)  Statutory  separate  judgment 

(1)  In  General 

In  an  action  against  several  defendants,  only  some 
of  whom  were  duly  served  with  process,  Judgment  against 
all  is  void  as  to  the  defendants  not  served;  and,  un- 
less the  rule  is  changed  by  statute,  it  Is  void  as  to  the 
others  If  the  Judgment  Is  considered  as  an  entirety.  If 
judgment  is  rendered  against  only  the  defendants  served 
with  process,  it  is  erroneous  or  voidable  where  the  ac- 
tion is  on  a  Joint  contract,  unless  the  statutes  provide 
otherwise. 

In  general,  as  discussed  supra  §§  19,  23,  a  judg- 
ment against  persons  over  whom  the  court  has  not 
acquired  jurisdiction  is  void.  Accordingly,  if  there 


77.  Ala. — Covington  v.   Robinson,    6 
So.2d  421,  242  Ala.  337— McKelvey- 
Coats  Furniture  Co.  v.  Doe,  198  So. 
128,  240  Ala.  135— Roth  v.  Scruggs, 
106  So.  182,  214  Ala.  32. 
Situation  does  not  arise  until  the 

evidence  is  in  If  the  plaintiff  con- 
tends that  both  parties  are  liable. 
-— McKelvey-Coats  Furniture  Co.  v. 
Doe,  199  So.  128,  240  Ala.  135. 

78.  Fla, — Universal    Credit    Co.     v. 
Beckwith,    172    So.    -358,    126    Fla. 
865. 

Necessity  for  two  or  more  defend- 
ants to  plead  grounds  of  abate- 
ment separately  or  jointly  seel 
Abatement  and  Revival  §  188  c. 

79.  111.— State   Bank  of  Prairie   du: 
Bocher  v.  Brown,  263  Ill.App.  312 
— Sergo  v.  Bloch,  263  llLApp.  198. 

Mo.— Neal  v.  Curtis  &  Co.  Mfg.  Co., 
41  S.W.2d  543,  328  Mo.  389. 

33  C.J.  p  1130  note  59. 

Entirety  of  judgments  generally  see 
supra  §  3. 

.80.    111.— State   Bank  of  Prairie   du 
Rocher  v.  Brown,  263  Ill.App.  312. 

81.  111.— Fredrich  v.  Wolf,  50  N.E.2d 
755,  383  111.  638— Sergo  v.  Bloch, 
263  Ill.App.  198. 

Mo.— Neal' v.  Curtis  &  Co.  Mfg.  Co., 

„  41   S.W.2d  543,   328  Mo.  389. 

33  C.J.  p  1130  note  59. 

Death  of  party  see  supra  §  29. 

Reversal  as  to  some  of  the  parties 
and  affirmance  as  to  others  on  ap- 


peal or  writ  of  error   see  Appeal 
and  Error  §§  1919-1922. 

82.  111.— State    Bank   of   Prairie    du 
Rocher  v.  Brown,   263  ULApp.  312 
— Berkemeier  v.  Dormuralt  Motor 
Sales,    263    ULApp.    211— Singer  v. 
Cross,  257  IlLApp.  41. 

Me. — Consolidated  Rendering  Co.   v. 

Martin,    145    A.    896,    128    Me.    96, 

64  A.L.R.  790. 
33  C.J.  p  1119  note  37,   p  1130  note 

59. 

83.  .  Ky. — Reed  v.  Runyan,   10   S.W. 
2d  824,  226  Ky.  261. 

Miss. — Bank  of  Philadelphia  v.  Pos- 
ey,  92  So.  840,  130  Miss.  530,  sug- 
gestion of  error  sustained  on  oth- 
er grounds  95  So.  134,  130  Miss. 
825. 

33  C.J.  p  1130  note  60. 

84.  Ky. — Reed   v.  Runyan,    10    S.W. 
2d  824,  226  Ky.  261. 

Okl.— Bledsoe  v.   Green,    280   P.   301, 

138  Okl.  15. 
Pa. — Merchants    Banking   Trust   Co. 

v.  Klimosky,  9  Pa.Dist.  &  Co.  143, 

23  Sch.Leg.Rec.  78. 
Tex.— U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaranty  Co. 

v.  Richey,  Civ.App.,  18  S.W.2d  231, 

error  refuser'. 
33  C.J.  p  1130  note  60. 

85.  Minn. — Engstrand    v.    Kleftman, 
90    N.W.    1054,    86    Minn.    40-3,    91 
Am.S.R.  359. 

86.  Mo.— Mclntosh  v.  Wiggins,   191 
S.W.2d    637,    certiorari    denied    66 
S.Ct    1015— Neal   v.   Curtis '&  Coil 

77 


Mfg.   Co.,   41   S.W.2d   543,    328   Mo. 

389. 

33  C.J.  p  1131  note  61. 
In  Mississippi' 

(1)  It  has  been  held  that  a  judg- 
ment at  law  is  an   entirety  and  is 
valid  or  invalid  as  a  whole. — Bout- 
well  v.  Grayson,  79  So.  61,  118  Miss. 
80— Carrollton    Hardware    &    Imple- 
ment Co.  v.  Marshall,   78   So.  7,   117 
Miss.  224 — Comenitz  v.  Bank  of  Com- 
merce, 38  So.  35,  85  Miss.  662— Weis 
v.    Aaron,    21   So.    763,    75   Miss.    138, 
65  Am.S.R.  594. 

(2)  These     cases,     however,    have 
been    overruled. — Bank   of   Philadel- 
phia v.  Posey,   92  So.  840,  130  Miss. 
530,  suggestion  of  error  sustained  on 
other  grounds  95  So.  134,  130  Miss. 
825. 

(3),  The  overruled  decisions  will 
control  the  validity  of  a  judgment 
which  affects  property  rights  where 
it  was  rendered  prior  to  the  time 
they  were  overruled. — Bank  of  Phil- 
adelphia v.  Posey,  95  So.  134,  130 
Miss.  825. 

8(7.    Mo. — State  v.  Blakemore,  205  S. 
W.  626,  275  Mo.  695. 

88.  Mo.— Neal  v.  Curtis  &  Co.  Mfg. 
Co.,   41   S.W.2d  543,   328  Mo.   389— 
Stotler  v,  Chicago  &  A.  Ry.  Co.,  98 
S.W.  509,  200  Mo.  107. 

89.  Mo.— Mclntosh  v.  'Wiggins,   191 
S.W.2d    537,    certiqrarj    denied    66 
S.Ct.  1015. 


33 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


are  several  defendants,  all  must  be  served  with 
process  or  appear  in  the  action  in  order  to  warrant 
a  judgment  against  all;9^  and,  where  none  was 
properly  served  with  process  or  made  an  appear- 
ance in  the  action,  a  personal  judgment  against 
such  defendants  is  void,91  A  judgment  against  all 
the  defendants,  some  of  whom  were  not  served  with 
process  and  did  not  appear  in  the  action,  is  void  as 
to  the  absent  defendant  or  defendants,92  and  at  com- 
mon law  and  in  the  absence  of  statute  changing  the 
rule  is  at  least  erroneous  and  voidable  as  to  all  the 
defendants.93  In  jurisdictions  where  a  judgment  is 
considered  as  an  entirety  and  if  void  as  to  one 
party  is  void  as  to  all,  discussed  supra  subdivision 
b  of  this  section,  such  a  judgment  is  absolutely  void 
as  to  all.94  However,  in  jurisdictions  where  judg- 
ments are  not  considered  as  an  entirety,  such  a 
judgment  is  at  most  voidable  and  not  void  as  to  the 
defendants  who  were  served  with  process  or  ap- 
peared;95 and  in  some  jurisdictions  if  the  action  is 
ex  delicto  the  judgment  is  valid  and  binding  against 
the  defendants  served  with  process.96  Under  the 
codes  and  practice  acts  in  various  jurisdictions  the 
judgment  is  valid  and  binding  against  parties  over 
whom  the  court  had  jurisdiction  by  proper  service 
of  process  or  appearance,97  or  at  least  it  is  an  er- 
ror or  irregularity  of  which  the  defendants  served 
cannot  complain.98 

f 

90.    I1L— Werner  v.  W.  H.  Shons  Co- 
173  N.B.  486,  341  111.  478. 


At  common  law  and  in  the  absence  of  statute 
changing  the  rule,  a  judgment  against  only  the  de- 
fendants served  with  process  or  appearing  is  er- 
roneous and  voidable  as  to  them  in  an  action  on  a 
joint  contract  against  several  defendants,  some  of 
whom  were  not  subjected  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  by  due  service  of  process  or  appearance,99 
it  having  been  the  rule  under  the  early  common 
law  that,  where  several  defendants  were  sued  on  a 
joint  contract,  plaintiff  was  not  entitled  to  judg- 
ment against  any  of  them,  until  all  were  served 
with  process,  or  until  those  not  served  were  prose- 
cuted to  outlawry.1  Under  some  statutes  the  fail- 
ure to  obtain  service  of  process  on  some  of  sev- 
eral defendants  will  not  affect  the  validity  of  a 
judgment  against  the  others  in  an  action  on  a  joint 
and  several  obligation;2  and  under  others  it  has 
been  held  that  in  an  action  against  several  defend- 
ants on  a  joint  obligation  judgment  may  properly 
be  taken  against  one,  or  fewer  than  all,  where  the 
other  defendants  were  nonresidents  not  served  with 
process.3  A  voluntary  general  appearance  for  de- 
fendants not  served  will  confer  jurisdiction  and  per- 
mit a  judgment  against  all.4  Statutes  in  derogation 
of  the  common  law,  and  authorizing  judgment 
jointly  against  all  defendants  on  process  served  on 
only  some  of  them,  discussed  infra  subdivision  c 
(3)  of  this  section,  or  a  several  judgment  against 


91.  Ky.— Viall   v.   Walker,   58   S.W. 
2d  415,  248  Ky.  197. 

In  discovery  proceeding1  after 
judgment,  however,  the  court  under 
some  statutes  has  been  held  to  have 
Jurisdiction  to  render  personal  judg- 
ment on  service  of  summons  against 
defendants  out  of  county,  even 
though  none  resided,  or  was  served, 
within  county. — Viall  v.  Walker,  su- 
pra. 

92.  Ga. — Hicks  v.  Bank  of  Wrights- 
ville,  194  S.B.  892,  £7  Ga.App.  233. 

Ky.— Capper  v.  Short,  11  S.W.2d  717, 
226  Ky.  689. 

Miss.— Bank  of  Philadelphia  v.  Pos- 
ey,  92  So.  840,  130  Miss.  530,  sug- 
gestion of  error  sustained  on  oth- 
er grounds,  95  So.  134,  1-30  Miss. 
825. 

N.C.— Crocker  v.  Vann,  135  S.E.  127, 
192  N.C.  422. 

Okl.— Bledsoe  v.  Green,  280  P.  301, 
138  Okl.  15. 

Tenn.— Ridgeway  v.  Bank  of  Ten- 
nessee, 11  Humph.  523 — Galbraith 
v.  Kirby,  109  S.W.2d  1168,  21  Tena 
App.  303. 

33  C.J.  p  1118  note  34. 

Statutory  joint  judgment  see  infra 
subdivision  c  (3).  of  this  section. 


93.  Ky.—  Capper  v.  Short,  11  S.W.2d 
717,  226  Ky.  689. 

33  C,J.  p  1119  note  35. 

94.  Me.  —  Buffum    v.    Ramsdell,    65 
Me.  252,  92  Am.D.  589. 

33  C.J.  p  1119  note  36. 

95.  Ky.  —  Capper  v.   Short,    11   S.W. 
2d  717,  226  Ky.  689. 

83  C.J.  p  1119  note  38. 

96.  Minn.  —  Engstrand    v.    Kleffman, 
90    N.W.    1054,    86    Minn.    40.3,    91 
Am.S.R.  359. 

97.  Fla.—  Street  v.   Crosthwait,   183 
So.  820,  134  Fla.  158,  modified  on 
other  grounds  186  So,  516,  136  Fla. 
327. 

Miss.  —  Bank  of  Philadelphia  v.  Pos- 
ey,  92  So.  840,  130  Miss.  530,  sug- 
gestion of  error  sustained  on  other 
grounds  95  So.  134,  130  Miss.  825. 

Mo.—  Nations  v.  Beard,  267  S.W. 
19,  216  Mo.App.  33. 

Okl.—  Bledsoe  v.  Green,  280  P.  301, 
138  Okl.  15. 

Tex.  —  Taylor  v.  Hustead  &  Tucker, 
Civ.  App.,  248  S.W.  766,  reversed  on 
other  grounds,  Com.  App.,  257  S.W. 
232. 

98.  Go.—  Hicks  v.  Bank  of  Wrights- 
ville,  194  S.E.  892,  57  Ga.App.  233. 

Mo.  —  State    ex    rel.    Cunningham   v. 
Haid,  40  S.W.2d  1048,  828  Mo.  208. 
33  C.J.  p  1119  note  40. 


99. 


Fla.  —  Harrington 

78 


v.     Bowman, 


136  So.  229,  102  Fla.  339,  modified 

on  other  grounds  143  So.  <651,  106 

Fla.  86. 

33  C.J.  p  1118  note  33. 
Process  or  appearance  see  supra  §5 

23-26. 

1.  Fla. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Har- 
rington v.   Bowman,   143   So.    661, 
653,  106  Fla.  86. 

33  C.J.  p  1118  note  81. 

2.  Ga.— Hicks  v.  Bank  of  Wrights- 
ville,  194  S.E.  892,  57  G*a.App.  233. 

3.  Mass.— Alfred      J.       Silberstein, 
Inc.,    v.   Nash,    10   N.B.2d    65,    298 
Mass.   170 — Lennon  v.  Cohen,   16-3 
N.E.  63,  264  Mass.  414. 

4*    Ala.— Eaton   v.    Harris,    42    Ala. 

491. 

33  C.J.  p  1119  note  41. 
Collateral  attack  where  appearance 

unauthorized  see  infra  §  424. 
Unauthorized  appearance 

Judgment  against  nonresident  de- 
fendant on  demurrer  filed  by  other 
defendants  and  purporting  to  include 
him  was  void  where  he  had  not  been 
served  with  process,  had  not  volun- 
tarily appeared  or  authorized  any 
attorney  to  appear  for  him,  and  had 
not  authorized  any  of  codefendants 
or  other  persons  to  employ  counsel 
for  him. — Street  v.  Dexter.  77  P.2d 
707,  182  Okl.  360. 


49 


JUDGMENTS 


§  33 


only  those  served,  discussed  infra  subdivision  c  (4) 
of  this  section,  must  be  strictly  construed  and  fol- 
lowed; judgment  is  authorized  only  in  cases  falling 
within  the  statute  as  thus  construed.* 

.  Construction  of  judgment.  Where  process  is 
served  only  on  some  of  the  defendants,  and  judg- 
ment is  taken  against  "defendants"  without  naming 
them,  and  without  any  appearance  of  those  not 
served,  the  judgment  will  be  understood  to  be  only 
against  those  who  were  duly  served.6 

(2)  Resident  and  Nonresident  Joint  Defend- 
ants 

In  the  absence  of  a  compliance  with  statutory  re- 
quirements, a  judgment  against  Joint  defendants,  resi- 
dents of  different  counties  or  districts,  Is  void  as  to  the 
nonresident  defendants. 

Under  statutes  authorizing  the  venue  of  actions 
against  several  defendants,  who  are  properly  joined 
as  such,  although  residents  of  different  counties,  to 
be  laid  in  the  county  where  one  of  them  resides  or 
is  summoned,  discussed  in  the  C.J.S.  title  Venue  §§ 
93-98,  also  67  CJ.  p  101  note  22-p  118  note  27, 
and  permitting  in  such  actions  the  issuance  and 
service  of  process  on  the  nonresident  defendants, 
discussed  in  the  C.J.S.  title  Process  §§  8,  32,  also  SO 
CJ.  p  451  notes  6-12,  p  475  note  1-p  476  note  13, 
a  judgment  taken  against  a  nonresident  of  the  coun- 
ty of  venue  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  stat- 
ute is  void  as  to  him;7  but  in  jurisdictions  where 
judgments  are  not  considered  as  an  entirety,  dis- 
cussed supra  subdivision  b  of  this  section,  it  is  not 
thereby  made  void  as* to  parties  who  were  properly 


served  with  process.*  Thus  a  judgment  against  a 
defendant  who  was  not  summoned  in  the  county  of 
venue  is  void  as  to  him  where  the  resident  and  non- 
resident defendants  were  improperly  joined  in  the 
action;9  and  it  is  likewise  void,  where  a  statute 
prohibits  judgment  in  such  case,  if  the  action  is 
discontinued  or  dismissed  as  to,10  or  judgment  is 
not  rendered  against,11  the  defendant  or  defend- 
ants residing  or  served  in  the  county  of  venue.  If, 
however,  the  nonresident  defendant  appears  and 
contests  the  court's  jurisdiction  over  him,  or  other- 
wise enters  his  appearance,  a  judgment  against  him 
is  at  most  erroneous  or  voidable.12 

(3)  Statutory  Joint  Judgment 
Under  various  joint  debtor  acts  a  Judgment  in  form 
against  all  the  defendants  may  be  rendered  In  an  action 
on  a  Joint  obligation  against  several  defendants,  some 
of  whom  were  not  served  with  process,  which  Is  good 
as  a  personal  Judgment  against  the  defendants  served 
and  enforceable  against  their  separate  property  and  the 
Joint  property  of  all,  located  within  the  state,  but  not 
against  the  individual  property  of  those  not  served. 

Under  a  class  of  statutes  commonly  known  as 
"joint  debtor  acts,"13  which  have  been  sustained  as 
essentially  constitutional,1*  and  which  were  enacted 
to  supersede  the  necessity  of  proceeding  to  outlawry 
against  one  not  found  or  brought  into  court,15  it 
has  been  held  that,  where  one  or  more  defendants 
are  sued  on  a  joint  obligation,  and  process  is  served 
on  one  or  more  but  not  on  all  defendants,  plaintiff 
may  proceed  against  those  served,  unless  the  court 
otherwise  directs,1*  and,  if  successful,  recover  a 
judgment  in  form  against  all  the  defendants,17 
which  is  good  as  a  personal  judgment  against  de- 


5.  Fla.— Davis  v.   First  Nat.   Bank 
&   Trust   Co.   of  Orlando,    150   So. 
633,    112    Fla.    485— Harrington    v. 
Bowman,   143  So.   651,   106  Fla,  86. 

33  C.J.  p  1119  note  45. 

6.  Ark.— Neal  v.  Singleton,  26  Ark. 
491. 

33  O.J.  p  1119  note  46. 

7.  Ky. — Hays   v.   Baker,    35    S.W.2d 
296,  237  Ky.  265. 

8.  Ky. — Reed  v.  Runyon,  10  S.W.2d 
824,  226  Ky.  261. 

9.  Ky. — Ramey  v.  Weddington,   105 
S.W.2d    824,    268    Ky.    675— Willis 
v.  Tomes,   132   S.W.  1043,   141  Ky. 
431. 

Collusive  Joinder  of  defendants  for 
the  sole  purpose  of  bringing  suit 
against  a  nonresident  of  the  county 
of  venue  will  render  judgment 
against  nonresident  void. — Wistrom 
v.  Forsling,  9  N.W.2d  294,  143  Neb. 
294,  rehearing  denied  and  opinion 
modified  on  other  grounds  14  N.W. 
2d  217,  144  Neb.  638. 
Joint  liability  not  shown 
Ky. — Ramey  v.  Weddington,  105  S. 

W.2d  824.  268  Ky.  675. 


10.    Ark. — Stiewel  v.  Borman,   37  S. 

W.  404,  .63  Ark.  30. 
Ky.— Ramey  v.   Weddington,   105    S. 

W.2d  824,  268  Ky.  675. 
67  C.J.  p  110  note  1   [b]    (3). 

lli    Ky. — Ramey  v.  Weddington,  su- 
pra. 
3d  C.J.  p  1085  note  26  [a]. 

12.  Ky. — Ramey  v.  Weddington,  su- 
pra—Hays   v.    Baker,     35    S.W.2d 
296,  237  Ky.  265. 

13.  U.S.— Hall  v.   Lanning,    HL,    91 
U.S.    160,   168,    23    LJBd.    271. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in.  City  of 
Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  431, 
147  Okl.  179. 

Judgment  in  action  on  partnership 
obligation  where  some  of  partners 
not  served  with  process  see  the 
C.J.S.  title  Partnership  S  235,  also 
47  C.J.  p  1011  note  22-p  1013  note 
31. 

Sufficiency  of  service  of  process  on 
part  of  several  executors  or  ad- 
ministrators see  Executors  and 
Administrators  §  753. 

79 


14.  Okl.— Corpus    juris     quoted    in 
City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,   296  P. 
418,  431,  147  Okl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1119  note  48. 

15.  OkL — Corpus     Juris    quoted    in 
City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,   296  P. 
418,  431,  147  Okl.  179. 

33  CJ.  p  1119  note  49. 

le.    U.S.— Hall    v.    Lanning,    HL,    91 

U.S.'l'SO,  2i3  L.Ed.  271. 
Okl.— Corpus  JurU  quoted  in  City  of 

Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  431, 

147  Okl.  179. 
Or.— Chagnot  v.  Labbe,   69  P.2d  949, 

157  Or.  280. 
33  C.J.  p  1120  note  50. 

17.    U.S.— Hall   v.    Lanning,    111.,    91 

U.S.  160,  23  L.Bd.  271. 
N.Y.— Kittredge   v.    Grannis,    165   N. 

B.    9S,    244    N.Y.    182— Kirsten    v. 

Chrystmos,    14   N.Y.S.2d   442. 
Okl.— Corpus  Juris  quoted,  in  City  of 

Capulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  431, 

147  OkL  179. 
Or. — Chagnot  v.  Labbe,   69  P.2d  949, 

157  Or.  280. 
33  C.J.  p  1120  note  51. 


33 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


f endants  who  were  served,  or  who  appeared,  and  is 
enforceable  against  their  separate  property,18  and 
the  joint  property  of  them  and  the  absent  defend- 
ant19 located  within  the  state,20  but  not  against  the 
latter's  individual  property.21 

Judgment  under  the  statute  is  not  authorized  un- 
less the  obligation  sued  on  is  the  joint22  contractu- 
al23 obligation  of  all  defendants.  A  judgment 
against  only  the  defendant  or  defendants  served  is 
erroneous.24  Nonresident  joint  debtors  are  within 
the  operation  of  the  statute,  and  property  within 
the  state  owned  jointly  by  nonresident  and  resident 
defendants  may  be  subject  to  the  judgment,25  but 
a  judgment  under  the  statute  against  a  citizen  of 
another  state,  as  an  absent  joint  debtor,  is  wholly 
void  in  every  other  state,  and  will  not  be  enforced 
or  given  any  effect.26  Other  similar  statutes  lim- 
ited to  particular  classes  of  cases,  such  as  actions 
on  bills  or  notes,  or  other  designated  instruments, 
have  been  enacted  from  time  to  time  in  different 
jurisdictions.27 

Such  a  judgment  is  not  good  and  binding  as  a 
personal  judgment  against  the  absent  defendant,28 
unless  made  so  by  the  statute,  in  which  event  it 
may  operate  as  a  personal  judgment  within  the  state 
where  rendered,29  subject  to  the  right  of  the  absent 


defendant  to  show  that  he  was  not  in  fact;  a  joint 
debtor,  and  that  therefore  the  judgment  against  him 
was  void  for  want  of  jurisdiction,  being  unauthor- 
ized by  statute.30  It  has  been  held  that  such  a  judg- 
ment will  not  support  an  action  against  him  on  the 
judgment  in  the  state  where  the  judgment  was  ren-' 
dered,31  although  the  rule  is  otherwise  under  some 
statutes,32  and  especially  not  in  the  courts  of  anoth- 
er state,33  and  is  not  entitled,  under  the  constitu- 
tion, to  full  faith  and  credit  in  other  states.34  It 
will  not  stop  the  running  of  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions in  favor  of  the  absent  defendant,35  or  merge 
or  bar  the  original  cause  of  action,36  at  least  not 
in  other  states,37  although  it  may  so  operate  in  the 
state,  where  rendered  if  the  statute  so  provides.38 
Such  judgments  have  no  other  force  or  effect  than 
such  as  has  been  expressly  given  to  them  by  the 
statutes,39  which  may,  and  sometimes  do,  make  the 
judgment  prima  facie  evidence  against  the  absent 
defendant,  reserving  to  him  the  right  to  contest  the 
merits  and  show  that  he  ought  not  to  have  been 
chargfed,40  while  under  other  statutes  the  judgment 
is  not  even  prima  facie  evidence  of  indebtedness.41 
A  joint  defendant  not  served  has  a  right  to  appear 
voluntarily  in  the  action  against  plaintiffs  objec- 
tion.42 A  statute  providing  that,  when  defendants 


18.  Okl. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P. 
418,  431,  147  Okl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1120  note  52. 

19.  N.Y.— Kittredge  v.  Grannis,  155 
N.B.  93,  244  N.Y.  182. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  City  of 
Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  431, 
147  Okl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1120  note  52. 

20.  Okl.— Corpus    Juris    quoted    la 
•City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,   296  P. 
418,  431,  147  OkT;  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1120  note  €3. 

21.  Okl. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    to 
City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P. 
418,  4-31,  147  Okl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1120  note  54. 

22.  N.Y.— Kittredge  v.  Grannis,  155 
N.E.  93,  244  N.Y.  182. 

Or. — Chagnot  v.  Labbe,  69  P.2d  949, 

157  Or.  280. 
33  C.J.  p  1121  note  55. 

23.  N.Y.— Kittredge  v.  Grannis,  155 
N,E.  93,  244  N.Y.  182. 

Claim  held  not  within  statute 

Claim  of  record  holder  of  bank 
stock  against  partnership  as  subse- 
quent purchaser,  for  indemnity  on 
account  of  assessment,  was  held  not 
claim  for  joint  indebtedness  on  con- 
tract, such  as  warranted  judgment 
against  both  debtors  where  only  one 
was  served. — Broderick  v.  Adamson, 
265  N.Y.S.  804,  148  Misc.  353,  revers- 
ed on  other  grounds  268  N.Y.S.  7*66, 


240  App.Div.  229,  and  modified  on 
other  grounds  269  N.Y.S.  700,  240 
App.Div.  202,  motion  denied  193  N. 
B.  287,  265  N.Y.  495,  and  affirmed 
196  N.B.  568,  267  N.Y.  538.  Affirmed 
277  N.Y.S.  951,  243  App.Div.  692,  and 
279  N.Y.S.  732,  244  App.Div.  707, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  200  N. 
B.  811,  270  N.Y.  260.  Affirmed  279 
N.Y.S.  753,  244  App.Div.  708,  affirm- 
ed 200  N.B.  797,  270  N.Y.  228.  Mod- 
ified on  other  grounds  285  N.Y.S. 
294,  246  App.Div.  268.  Affirmed  in 
part  287  N.Y.S.  322,  247  App.Div. 
711,  reversed  on  other  grounds  5 
N.B.2d  838,  272  N.Y.  816. 

24.  Wis.— Brawley    v.    Mitchell,    66 
N.W.  799,  92  Wis.  671. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  56. 

25.  N.Y.— -Kittredge  v.  Grannis,  155 
N.E.  93,  244  N.Y.  182. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  57. 

26.  U.S. — Gojdey  .v.  Morning  News, 
N.Y.,    15    S.Ct    559,    156   U.S.  .518, 
39  L.Ed.  517. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  58. 

27.  111. — Neal  v.  Pennington,  6"5  HI. 
App.  68. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  61. 

28.  U.S.— Hall  v.   Lanning,   HL,    91 
U.S.  160,  23  L.Bd.  271. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  62. 

29.  N.J.— Harker  v.  Brink,  24  N.J. 
Law  W. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  63. 

3a    N.J. — Harker  v.  Brink,  supra. 

80 


31.  Cal.— Tay  v.  Hawley,  39  Cal.  93. 
33  C.J.  p  1121  note  65. 

32.  N.Y. — Townsend    v.    Carman,    € 
Cow.     695,     affirmed     Carman     v* 
Townsend,  6  Wend.  206. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  66. 

33.  U.S.— Hall   v.    Lanning,   I1L,    91 
U.S.  160,  2«  L.Bd.  271. 

33  C.J.  p  1121  note  67. 

34.  U.S. — Hall  v.  Lanning,  supra. 
3-3  C.J.  p  1121  note  68. 

35.  N.Y.— Maples  v.  Mackey,   89  N. 
Y.  -146— Lane  v.  gaiter,  51  N.Y,  1. 

36.  N.Y.— Oakley    v.    Aspinwall,    4 
N.Y.  513. 

37.  Mass. — Odoiri  v.  Denny,  16  Gray 
114. 

38.  U.S. — D'Arcy   v.   Ketchum,    La., 
11  How.   1-65,  13  L.Ed.   648. 

39.  N.Y.— Oakley  v.  Aspinwall,  4  N. 
Y.  513, 

35  C.J.  p  1121  note  76. 

40.  U.S. — D'Arcy   v.   Ketchum*   La., 
17  How.  165,  13  L.Bd.  648. 

N.Y. — Townsend  v.  Carman,  6  Cow., 
695,  affirmed  Carman  v.  Townsend, 
6  Wend.  206. 

41.  N.Y.— -Morey  v.  Tracey,  92  N.Y. 
581. 

33  C.J.  p  1122  note  75. 

42.  N.Y.— McLoughlin  v.  Bieber,  51 

N.Y.S.  805,  26  Misc.  143. 
33  C.J.  p  1122  note  74. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  34 


are  joint  and  solidary  obligors,  they  may  be  cited 
at  the  domicile  of  any  one  of  them  does  not  give 
the  court  jurisdiction  to  render  a  judgment  in  per- 
sonam  against  a  nonresident  not  found  within  the 
state.43 

(4)  Statutory  Separate  Judgment 

Under  various  statutes  in  a  Joint  action  against  sev- 
era)  defendants,  some  of  whom  were  not  served  with 
process,  Judgment  may  be  rendered  against  those  served, 
excluding  the  others,  provided  the  statutory  conditions 
precedent  thereto  are  shown,  which  serrate  Judgment 
binds  the  Joint  property  of  all  the  defendants  and  the 
Individual  property  of  those  served. 

Under  statutes  so  providing  if  two  or  more  per- 
sons are  sued  in  a  joint  action,  plaintiff  may  pro- 
ceed against  any  one  or  more  of  them  on  service  of 
process  on  them,  notwithstanding  there  may  be 
others  not  served,  and  recover  a  judgment  against 
those  served,  excluding  the  others,44  provided  it  is 
shown  that  defendants  not  brought  in  cannot  be 
found  or  that  it  is  impossible  to  serve  process  on 
them,45  and  that  there  is  a  joint  liability  or  joint 
cause  of  action  against  all,46  and  notation  of  the 
fact  of  nonservice  on  the  absent  defendant  is  made 
to  appear  in  the  judgment,47  where  the  statute 
makes  such  facts  conditions  precedent.48  Such  sep- 
arate judgment  binds  the  joint  property  of  all  the 
defendants  and  the  individual  property  of  the  de- 
fendants served.49  A  several  judgment  may  be 


rendered  against  only  defendants  served  where  the 
liability  is  joint  and  several,60  or,  in  some  juris- 
dictions, even  though  it  is  joint51 


§  34. 


Contract  Actions 


At  common  law  and  In  the  absence  of  a  statute 
changing  the  rule,  a  Judgment  in  an  action  ex  contractu 
against  several  defendants  must  be  in  favor  of  all  de- 
fendants or  none,  unless  a  defendant  pleads  matter  which 
goes  to  his  personal  discharge  or  an  unnecessary  and 
improper  party  was  Joined  as  defendant.  Under  various 
codes  and  practice  acts,  however,  Judgment  may  be 
taken  against  the  party  or  parties  found  liable  and  in 
favor  of  those  found  not  liable. 

At  common  law,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  statute 
changing  the  rule,  if  several  defendants  are  joined 
in  an  action  ex  contractu,  and  all  are  brought  be- 
fore the  court  by  service  or  appearance  plaintiff 
must  recover  against  all  or  none,  and  it  is  not  com- 
petent to  enter  a  judgment  in  favor  of  one  defend- 
ant and  against  another.52  Under  codes  and  prac- 
tice acts  authorizing  judgments  to  be  rendered  for 
or  against  one  or  more  of  several  defendants,  dis- 
cussed generally  supra  §  33  a,  which  are  applica- 
ble in  actions  ex  contractu,53  including  actions  on 
quantum  meruit,54  judgment  in  an  action  against 
several  defendants  on  a  joint,  or  joint  and  several, 
obligation  may  be  taken  against  the  party  or  par- 
ties shown  to  be  liable,  when  the  others  are  not 
liable,55  and  in  favor  of  defendant  or  defendants 


43.  La. — Klotz  v.  Tru-Fruit  Distrib- 
utors, App.,  173  So.  S92. 

44.  Cal.— Merchants'   Nat.    Bank  of 
Los   Angeles  v.   Clark-Parker  Co., 
9  P.2d  826,  215  Cal,  296,  81  A.L.R. 
778. 

Fla. — Davis  v.  First  Nat  Bank  & 
Trust  Co.  of  Orlando,  150  So.  633, 
112  Fla.  485 — Harrington  v.  Bow- 
man, 143  So.  £51,  106  Fla.  86. 

Ohio. — Hoyt  v.  Geo.  W.  Stone  Co.,  27 
Ohio  N.P.,N.S.,  5-33. 

33  C.J.  p  1122  notes  77,  78. 

45.  Ind. — Hunt   v.  Adamson,  4  Ind. 
108. 

33  C.J.  p  1122  note  79. 

46.  111. — Cassady    v.    School    Trus- 
tees, 105  111.  560. 

33  C.J.  p  1122  note  80. 

47.  Fla.— Davis  v.  First  Nat  Bank 
&    Trust   Co.   of  Orlando,   150   So. 
633,  112  Fla.  485. 

48.  Fla,— Davis   v.  First  Nat   Bank 
&  Trust  Co.  of  Orlando,  supra. 

33  C.J.  p  1122  note  81. 

49.  Ga.— Wright   v.   Harris,    24    Ga. 
415 — Denton    v.    Hannah,    77    S.B. 
672,  12  Ga.App.  494. 

50.  N.M.— Leusch  v.  Nickel,   113  P. 
595,  16  N.M.  28. 

33  aj.  p  1122  note  83. 

51.  Cal.— Merchants'   Nat.    Bank   of 
Los   Angeles  v.   Clark-Parker  Co., 

49C.J.S.-6 


9  «P.2d  826,  215  Cal.  296,  81  A.L.R. 
778. 

52.  Colo. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in 
Beatty  v.  Resler,  118  P.2d  1084, 
1085,  108  Colo.  434— Corpus  Juris 
cited  in  Townsend  v.  Heath,  103 
P.2d  691,  692,  106  Colo.  273. 
Fla.— Davis  v.  First  Nat.  Bank  & 
Trust  Co.  in  Orlando,  150  So.  £33, 
112  Fla.  485— Jones  v.  Griffin,  138 
•So.  38,  103  Fla.  745— Harrington 
v.  Bowman,  1-36  So.  229,  102  Fla. 
339,  modified  on  other  grounds  143 
So.  651,  106  Fla.  86— Merchants'  & 
Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Sample,  124 
So.  49,  98  Fla.  759,  rehearing  de- 
nied 125  So.  1,  98  Fla.  759. 
Mass. — Riley  v.  Burns,  22  N.B.2d 

761,  304  Mass.  15. 
33  C.J.  p  1111  note  98. 
Conformity   to   pleadings   and  proof 

see  infra  §§  47-64. 
Judgment  against: 
One  or  more: 
Coparties  in  action: 
Before  justice  of  the  peace  see 
the   C.J.S.    title   Justices   of 
the  Peace  §  110,.  also  35  C.J. 
p  674  notes  87-93. 
Of  debt  see  Debt,  Action  of  $ 

16. 

Partners  see  the  C.J.S..  title 
Partnership  §  235,  also  47  C. 
J.  p  1010  note  2-p  1011  note 
11. 

81 


Principal  and  surety  see  the  C. 
J.S.  title  Principal  and  Surety 
§  277,  also  50  C.J.  p  223  notes 
96-1. 

Defense  "by  one  party 

Where  one  defendant  or  several 
joint  defendants  maintain  defense 
which  negatives  plaintiff's  right  to 
recover  against  any  defendant, 
plaintiff  is  not  entitled  to  judgment 
against  any  defendant,  although  par- 
ticular defendant  does  not  appear 
or  plead  such  defense. — Mackintosh 
v.  Chambers,  190  N.B.  38,  285  Mass. 
594. 

68.  Ariz. — Bracker  Stores  v.  Wilson, 
10-3  P.2d  253,  55  Ariz.  403. 

Iowa. — Lull  v.  Anamosa  Nat.  Bank, 
81  N.W.  784,  110  Iowa  537. 

33  C.J.  p  1115  note  22. 

54.  Or. — Fischer    v.    Bayer,    210    P. 
452,  108  Or.  311. 

55.  Ariz. — Bracker  Stores  v.  Wilson, 
103    P.2d   253,    55    Ariz.    403— Reid 
v.  Topper,  259  P.  397,  32  Ariz.  381. 

Colo. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Beatty 
v.  Resler,  118  P.2d'1084,  1085,  108 
Colo.  434. 

Conn. — Woodruff  v.  Perrotti,  122  A. 
452,  99  Conn.  639. 

Ind.^rFidelity  &  Deposit  Co.  of 
Maryland  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  199 
NJL.  169,  101  Ind.App.  301. 


§  34 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


found  not  liable.56  However,  as  discussed  infra 
§  36,  such  statutes  do  not  permit  the  rendition  of  a 
several  judgment  on  a  joint  cause  of  action.  If 
plaintiff  sues  on  and  shows  only  a  joint  obligation, 
judgment  must  be  against  all  jointly  liable  or 
none,57  except,  under  some  statutes,  where  the  oth- 
er joint  obligors  are  not  served  with  process,  as 
discussed  supra  §  33  c;  but  if  the  proofs  show  a 
several  obligation,  or  a  joint  obligation  as  to  two 
or  more  defendants  fewer  than  all,  a  recovery  may 
be  had  against  those  shown  to  be  liable  regardless 
of  the  fact  that  only  a  joint  obligation  was  al- 
leged.58 In  an  action  on  a  contract  which  at  com- 
mon law  would  have  been  joint  only,  but  which  by 
force  of  statute  is  joint  and  several,  as  considered 
in  Contracts  §  355  a  (2),  judgment  may  be  had 
against  him  or  those  of  the  obligees  sued  who  are 
shown  to  be  liable.59  In  an  action  on  a  contract 
judgment  may  run  against  a  party  who  is  not  a 
party  to  the  contract  but  is  liable  on  an  independ- 
ent agreement  to  pay  the  amount  due  under  the 
contract60 


Exceptions  to  common-law  rule.  Although  the 
common  law  rule  has  been  long  and  well  estab- 
lished, it  is  not  universal,  whenever  a  defendant 
pleads  matter  which  goes  to  his  personal  discharge, 
or  any  matter  that  does  not  go  to  the  nature  of  the 
writ,  or  pleads  or  gives  in  evidence  a  matter  which 
is  a  bar  to  the  action  against  himself  only,  and  of 
which  the  others  could  not  take  advantage,  judg- 
ment may  be  for  such  defendant  and  against  the 
rest.61  In  such  case  judgment  in  favor  of  a  de- 
fendant relying  on  a  defense  personal  to  himself 
does  not  discharge  the  other  joint  obligors.62  It  is 
essential  to  the  operation  of  this  exception  that  a 
defense  insisted  on  by  one  of  several  joint  debtors 
be  personal  to  him,  and  not  one  of  which  the  oth- 
er defendants  could  take  advantage.63  Personal 
defenses  within  the  exception  to  the  rule  include 
a  discharge  in  bankruptcy64  or  insolvency;65  the 
defense  of  the  statute  of  limitations;66  a  release 
of  an  obligor,  with  a  reservation  of  the  right  to 
proceed  against  the  remaining  obligor  or  obligors  ;67 
personal  disability  to  contract,68  such  as  infancy,69 


'  Me.— Arnst  v.  Estes,  8  A.2d  201,  136 

Me.  272. 
Mass.— Dindio  v.  Meshaka,   175  N.E. 

170.  275  Mass.  112. 
Mich.— Waller    v.    -Sloan,    196    N.W. 

347,  225  Mich.  600. 
Mo. — Welch-Sandier    Cement    Co.    v. 

Mullins,  App.,   31   S.W.2d   86. 
N.Y.— Reeve   v.   Cromwell,    287   N.Y. 

S.  20,  227  App.Div.  32. 
Ohio.— Maus  v.  Jones,   172  N.E.  157, 

122  Ohio  St.  459. 
Okl. — Corpus   Juris    quoted   in   City 

of   Sapulpa  v.  Young,   296  'P.  418, 

431,  147  Okl.  179. 
33  C.J.  p  1115  note  24. 
In  actions    on   bills   and   notes   see 

Bills  and  Notes  §  718  b. 
Contribution,  'between,  defendants 

If  defendant  against  whom  judg- 
ment is  entered  is  required  to  pay 
more  than  his  proportionate  share 
of  the  judgment  he  may  seek  contri- 
bution from  the  others. — Smude  v. 
Amidon,  7  N.W.2d  776,  214  Minn. 
266. 

56.  Mich.— Waller  v.   Sloan,  196  N. 
W.  347,  22;5  Mich.  600. 

57.  Colo. — Corpus    Juris    quoted   in 
Beatty   v.    Resler,    118    P.2d    1084, 
1085,  1086,  108  Colo.  434. 

Mass. — Mackintosh  v.  Chambers,  190 

N.E.  38,  285  Mass.  594. 
Mich.— Penfold  v.   filyfield,    68   N.W. 

226,  110  Mich.  343. 
N.T. — Giventer    v.    Antonofsky.    205 

N.Y.S.  287,   209  App.Div.   679. 
Okl.— Corpus   Juris    quoted   in    City 

of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418, 

431,  147  Okl.  179. 
33  C.J.  p  1117  note  27. 


58.  Colo. — Corpus   Juris    quoted    in 
Beatty   v.    Resler,    118    P.2d   1084, 
1085,  1086,  108  Colo.  434. 

Mass.— Alfred  J.  Silberstein,  Inc.  v. 

Nash,  10  N.E.2d  65,  298  Mass.  170. 
Mo.— Welch-Sandier  Cement  Co.  v. 

Mullins,  App.,   31  6.W.2d  86. 
Mont.— McCay    v.    Butler,    114    P.2d 

517,  112  Mont  249. 
Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  City  of 

Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  431, 

147  Okl.  179. 
Or. — Hamm  v.  Basche,  80  P.  501,  22 

Or.  613. 
Pa. — Smith  v.  Walat  &  Stutzman,  99 

Pa.  Super.  147. 
33  C.J.  p  1117  note  27. 

59.  Mo. — Thomas  v.  Schapeler,  App., 
92  S.W.2d  982. 

Oral  contracts  have  been  except- 
ed  from  the  rule. — Townsend  v. 
Heath,  103  P.2d  691,  106  Colo.  273— 
Exchange  Bank  of  Denver  v.  Ford, 
3  P.  449,  7  Colo.  314. 

60.  Conn. — Meyers  v.  Arm,  13  A.2d 
507,  126  Conn.  679. 

Liability  of  third  person  assuming 
indebtedness  under  contract  see 
Contracts  §  520. 

61.  Fla. — Davis  v.  First  Nat.  Bank 
&  Trust   Co.   of  Orlando,    150   So. 
6-33,    112    Fla.    485 — Harrington   v. 
Bowman,   143  <So.   651,  106  Fla.  86 
— Corpus  Juris   cited  in  Jones  v. 
Griffin,  138  So.  38,  39,  103  Flo.  745. 

Mass.—- Riley    v.    Burns,    22    N.E.2d 

761,    304   Mass.   15— Mackintosh  v. 

Chambers,  190  N.E.   38,  285  Mass. 

594. 
Pa. — Baldwin  v.  Ely,  19-3  A.  299,  127 

Pa.-Super.  110. 
33  C.J.  p  1112  note  99. 

62.  Pa. — Baldwin  v.  Ely,  supra. 

82 


63.  Ark.— State  v.  Williams,  17  Ark. 
•371. 

33  C.J.  p  1113  note  1. 

64.  Mass.— Riley  v.   Burns,   22  N.E. 
2d  761,  304  Mass.  15. 

33  C.J.  p  1113  note  2. 

In  action  against  general  and  spe- 
cial partners  see  the  C.J.S.  title 
Partnership  §  486,  also  47  C.J.  p 
1316  note  21. 

65.  Fla,— Corpus     Juris      cited     in 
Jones  v.  Griffin,  138  So.  38,  39,  105 
Fla.  745. 

33  C.J.  p  1113  note  «. 

66.  Minn. — Town   v.    Washburn,    14 
Minn.   268,    100   Am.D.   219. 

33  C.J.  p  1113  note  8  [c]. 

Recovery  against  defendants  where 
action  against  codefendants  is 
barred  by  limitations  generally 
see  the  C.J.S.  title  Limitations  of 
Actions  §  212,  also  37  C.J.  p  1003 
notes  73-79. 

67.  Pa.— Baldwin  v.  Ely,  193  A.  299, 
127  Pa.Super.  110. 

68.  Fla. — Jones   v.    Griffin,    138    So. 
38,  103  Fla.  745. 

69.  Fla. — Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
Jones    v.    Griffin,    138    So.    38,    39, 
103  Fla.  745. 

Mass.— Riley    v.    Burns,    22    N.E.2d 

761,  304  Mass.  15. 
P&.— Wharen  v.  Funk,  31  A.2d  450, 

152  Pa. Super.  133. 
3-3  C.J.  p  1113  note  5. 
Invalidity  of  judgment  as  to  infant 

as  not  rendering  it  void  as  to  his 

adult  codefendants  see  Infants   § 

122  a. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


35 


insanity,70    or   coverture;71    and  other  like  mat- 
ters.72 

The  rule  has  no  proper  application  to  an  action 
against  administrators  as  such  on  a  contract  alleged 
to  have  been  made  with  decedent,73  or  where  some 
of  defendants  are  not  served  with  process  and  do 
not  appear,74  or  where  the  statement  of  claim  shows 
a  several  liability  against  one  defendant,  and  the 
action  is  dismissed  as  to  the  other  joint  defendants 
before  submission  to  the  jury.75  Another  exception 
to  the  rule  arises  when  one  who  is  an  unnecessary 
or  improper  party  is  joined  as  a  defendant.76 

§  35.    Tort  Actions 

In  tort  actions  Judgment  ordinarily  may  be  rendered 
for  or  against  one  or  more  of  several  defendants. 

In  actions  for  tort  against  several  defendants  it 
has  generally  been  held  that  judgment  may  be  ren- 
dered against  one  or  as  many  of  defendants  as  the 
proof  shows  were  guilty  of  the  wrong,  and  in  favor 
of  those  as  against  whom  the  proof  fails,77  or 
against  some  of  defendants  shown  to  be  liable  where 


plaintiff  waives  his  right  to  recover  against  the 
others,78  although  there  formerly  was  some  au- 
thority to  the  effect  that,  in  an  action  against  two 
or  more  for  a  joint  tort,  recovery  was  required  to 
be  against  all  or  none.79  This  is  also  true  under 
codes  and  practice  acts  authorizing  judgments  to 
be  rendered  for  or  against  one  or  more  of  several 
defendants,  as  considered  generally  supra  §  33  a, 
which  are  applicable  in  actions  for  tort,80  as  are 
rules  of  court  to  the  same  effect.81 

If  it  appears  during  the  course  of  the  proceed- 
ings that  a  defendant  is  not  liable,  the  court  may 
render  judgment  in  his  favor  and  allow  the  case  to 
proceed  against  the  others,82  and  the  court's  dis- 
charge of  some  of  defendants  in  an  action  charg- 
ing concurrent  wrongful  acts  or  omissions  will  not 
preclude  judgment  against  the  others.83  Even  after 
verdict,  where  a  joint  liability  has  been  found  to 
exist,84  or  where  several  damages  have  been  given 
by  the  jury,85  judgment  may  be  rendered  against 
one  defendant  alone.  In  jurisdictions  where  it  is 
proper  to  grant  a  new  trial  as  to  part  of  the  par- 


70.     Fla.— -Corpus     Juris      cited     to 

Jones  v.  Griffin,  138  So.  38,  39,  103 

Fla.  745. 

111.— Aten  v.  Brown,  14  IlLApp.  451. 
Validity  of  judgment  against  insane 

person  see  Insane  Persons  §  151  b. 
71*     Fla.— Corpus      Juris     cited     to 

Jones    v.    Griffin,    158    So.    38,    39, 

103  Fla.  745. 
33  C.J.  p  1113  note  7. 

72-  Fla.— <!orpus  Juris  cited  to 
Jones  v.  Griffin,  138  So.  38,  «39,  103 
Fla.  745. 

33  C.J.  p  111*  note  8. 

73.  Ala,— Gray  v.  White,  5  Ala.  490. 

74.  Me.— Dennett    v.    Chick,    2    Me. 
191,  11  AmJX  59. 

33  C.J.  p  1113  note  10. 

75.  111.— Wilson     v.     Johnson,     178 
IlLApp.  385. 

•to    m. — Mayer'  v.  Brensinger,  54  N. 

B.    159,    180    111.    110,    72    Am.S.R. 

196. 
3$  C.J.  P  1113  note  12. 

77.  Ala.— Alabama  Power  Co.  v. 
Talmadge,  93  "So.  548,  207  Ala.  86, 
error  dismissed  42  S.Ct  463,  259 
U.S.  575,  66  L.Ed.  1071. 

B.C. — Ewald  v.  Lane,  104  F.2d  222, 
70  App.D.C.  89,  certiorari  denied 
Lane  v.  Ewald,  60  S.Ct  81,  308  U 
S.  568,  84  L.Bd.  477— Gale  v.  Inde- 
pendent Taxi  Owners  Ass'n,  84  F< 
2d  249,  65  App.D.C.  $96. 

Fla.— Dr.  F.  Phillips  &  Sons  v.  Kil- 
gore,  12  So.2d  465,  152  Fla.  578 — 
Stanley  v.  Powers,  166  -So.  843,  123 
Fla.  359— Seaboard  Air  Line  By. 
Co.  v.  Ebert  1«*  So.  104. 

Ga. — Joyce  v.  City  of  Dalton,  App., 
36  S.K.2d  104. 


111.— Minnis  v.  Friend,  19-6  N.E.  191, 
360  111.  328— Rome  Soap  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  John  T.  La  Forge  &  Sons,  54 
N.B.2d  252,  322  HlJLpp.  281— Koltz 
v.  Jahaaske,  38  N.B.2d  973,  312 
IlLApp.  $23— Skala  v.  Lehon,  258 
IlLApp.  252,  affirmed  175  N.B.  832, 
343  111.  602— Bunyan  v.  American 
Glycerin  Co.,  230  IlLApp.  351— Hi- 
bernian Banking  Ass'n  v.  True, 
228  IlLApp.  194. 

Ind. — Inter  State  Motor  Freight  Sys- 
tem v.  Henry,  38  N.E.2d  909,  111 
Ind.  App.  179— Indianapolis  Trac- 
tion &  Terminal  Co.  v.  Holtsclaw, 
81  N.B.  1084,  40  Ind.App.  311. 

La. — Overstreet  v.  Ober,  130  So.  648, 
14  La.App.  63$. 

Mich. — Anderson  v.  Conterio,  5  N.W. 
2d  572,  303  Mich.  75— Walton  v. 
Hymans,  4  N.W.2d  640,  302  Mich. 
256. 

Mo.— Raleigh  v.  Raleigh,  App.,  5  S. 
W.2d  689. 

Ohio.— Smith  v.  Fisher,  App.,  82  N". 
B.2d  561— Ohio  Power  Co.  v.  Fit- 
tro,  173  N.E.  35,  36  Ohio  App.  186. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  to  City  of 
Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  430, 
431,  147  Okl.  179. 

Tex. — San  Antonio  Gas  Co.  v.  Sin- 
gleton, 59  S.W.  920,  24  Tex.Civ. 
App.  $41,  error  refused. 

33  C.J.  p  1113  note  13. 

79.    Tex. — Taylor  Water  Co.  v.   Dil- 

lard,    29   S.W.   6-62,   9   Tex.Civ.App. 

6*7. 
79.    La.— Loussade   v.    Hartman,    16 

La,  117. 

33  C.J.  p  1114  note  16  [a]. 
Prior  to  statutory  change 
Pa. — Polls  v.  Heizmann,  120  A.  269, 

276  Pa.  315,  27  A.L.R.  948. 

83 


80.  Ala.— Sloss-Sheffield  Steel  & 
Iron  Co.  v.  Wilkes,  181  So.  276,  236 
Ala.  173— Pollard  v.  Rogers,  173 
So.  881,  234  Ala.  92— Sloss- Shef- 
field Steel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Wilkes, 
165  So.  764,  231  Ala.  511,  109  A.L. 
R.  385. 

Cal. — Rocca  v.  Steinmetz,  208  P.  964, 
189  Cal.  42*6. 

Iowa. — Lull  v.  Anamosa  Nat.  Bank, 
110  Iowa  537,  81  N.W.  784. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  City 
of  Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418, 
431,  147  Okl.  179. 

Or. — Anderson  v.  Maloney,  225  P. 
•318,  111  Or.  84. 

Pa.— Stone  v.  City  of  Philadelphia, 
15>3  A.  550,  302  Pa.  840— Gable  v. 
Yellow  Cab  Co.,  150  A.  162,  300 
Pa,  37— Carroll  v.  Kirk,  19  A.2d 
584,  144  Pa.Super.  211— Mullen  v. 
McGeagh,  88  Pa.  Super.  381 — Cairns 
v.  Spencer,  87  Pa.Super.  126 — 
Brown  v.  George  B.  Newton  Coal 
Co.,  Com.PL,  28  DeLCo.  23. 

Wash. — Eyak  River  Packing  Co.  v. 
Huglen,  255  P.  123,  143  Wash.  229, 
reheard  257  P.  638,  143  Wash.  229. 

35  C.J.  p  1115  note  22. 

8L  Mich. — Kolehmainen  v.  B.  B. 
Mills  Trucking  Co.,  S  N.W.2d  298, 
301  Mich.  340 — Barkman  v.  Mon- 
tague, 298  'N.W.  273,  297  Mich.  638. 

82.  Cal. — Rocca  v.  Steinmetz,  208  P. 
964,  189  Cal.  426. 

Me.— Arnst  v.  Estes,  8  A.2d  201,  186 
Me.  272. 

83.  Mich. — Barkman     v.     Montague, 
298  N.W.  273,   297  Mich.  538. 

84.  ni.— Minnis  v.  Friend,  196  NJB. 
191,  "360  I1L  328. 

35.  iu.— Koltz  v.  Jahaaske,  38  N.B. 
2d  973,  312  IlLApp.  628. 


§  35 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


ties,  as  considered  in  the  CJ.S,  title  New  Trial  § 
12,  also  46  C.J.  p  78  note  31-p  80  note  55,  the  court 
may  grant  a  new  trial  to  one  or  more  of  several 
defendants  if  satisfied  that  they  were  wrongly  con- 
victed, and  render  judgment  on  the  verdict  as  to 
the  remainder.86 

The  common-law  rule  which  requires  judgment 
against  all  joint  defendants  or  none  in  actions  on 
contracts,  as  considered  supra  §  34,  has  no  appli- 
cation to  actions  for  torts,87  except  where  the  ac- 
tion is  for  a  negligent  performance  of,  or  a  neg- 
ligent failure  to  perform,  a  duty  arising  out  of  a 
contract,  in  which  case  the  rule  is  the  same  as  in 
actions  on  contract,  and,  if  a  joint  contract  and  lia- 
bility are  alleged,  a  joint  liability  must  be  shown.88 
However,  where  the  relation  of  the  parties  is  such 
that  an  issue  found  for  one  defendant  necessarily 
inures  to  the  benefit  of  his  codefendant,89  as  where 
a  defendant's  culpability  is  the  sole  predicate  for 
his  codefendant's  liability,90  judgment  cannot  be 
entered  for  the  former  and  against  the  latter;  but 
this  rule  has  no  application  where  each  defendant 
is  charged  with  acts  of  negligence  resulting  in  the 
injury.91 

In  jurisdictions  where  there  is  a  statutory  right 
to  contribution  between  joint  tort-feasors  who  are 
codefendants  in  judgment,  as  considered  in  Con- 
tribution §  11  b  (5),  it  has  been  held  that,  where 
plaintiff  has  consented  to  a  voluntary  nonsuit  as  to 
one  of  two  defendant  joint  tort-feasors,  it  is  er- 
roneous to  render  judgment  against  the  other,92  al- 
though, if  the  jury  exculpate  one  of  two  joint 
tort-feasors  sued  jointly,  judgment  may  be  rendered 
against  the  other.93  In  an  action  for  fraud  against 


defendants  jointly  and  severally  liable  therefor  it  is 
unnecessary  for  the  judgment  to  provide  that  re- 
covery be  first  had  as  far  as  possible  out  of  the 
defendant  primarily  liable  where  he  is  hopelessly 
insolvent.94 

It  has  been  held  that  the  judgment  should  be 
against  all  defendants  shown  to  be  jointly  liable  for 
the  tort;95  and  in  some  jurisdictions  it  has  been 
held  that  judgment  must  be  against  all  joint  tort- 
feasors  who  are  not  discharged.96  On  the  other 
hand  a  joint  judgment  against  joint  defendants, 
some  of  whom  are  not  guilty,  is  erroneous;97  but 
there  is  authority  which  holds  that  as  to  defendant 
or  defendants  actually  liable  for  the  tort  the  judg- 
ment is  not  invalid  or  improper.98  Under  some 
statutes,  where  the  original  defendants  bring  addi- 
tional defendants  into  the  action,  asserting  that  they 
are  primarily  liable,  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  judgment 
against  them  the  same  as  though  they  had  been  di- 
rectly sued  by  him.99 

In  an  action  for  ejectment  based  on  a  tort,  judg- 
ment may  be  rendered  against  defendants  served 
who  appeared,  even  though  a  default  could  not 
properly  be  entered  against  defendants  who  did 
not  appear  because  of  plaintiff's  failure  to  comply 
with  a  statute  requiring  him  to  file  an  affidavit  that 
they  were  not  in  the  military  service.1 

§  36.    Joint  or  Several  Judgments 

a.  In  general 

b.  Under  codes  and  practice  acts 

c.  Disposition  of  case  as  to  all  parties; 

separate  judgments 


86,  111.— Pecararo  v.  Halberg,  92  N. 
E.  600,  246  111.  95. 

33  C.J.  p  1114  note  14. 

87,  in.— Skala  v.  Lehon,  258  Ill.App. 
252,     affirmed    175    N.E.    832,     343 
111.  602. 

Me.— Arnst  v.  Estes,  8  A.2d  201,  136 

Me.  272. 
Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  City  of 

Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  430, 

431,  147  Okl.  179. 

88,  Ala. — Hackney  T.  Perry,  44  So. 
1029,  152  Ala.  626. 

33  C.J.  p  1114  note  17. 

89,  Okl. — Anthony  v.  Covington,  100 
P.2d  461,  187  Okl.  27. 

33  C.J.  p  1115  note  18. 

Contract  and  tort  natality  based  on 

same  act 

Where  liability  of  one  defendant 
for  negligence  and  of  another  for 
breach  of  warranty  were  both  predi- 
cated on  the  same  tortious  act,  a 
judgment  against  defendant  sued  for 
negligence  and  in  favor  of  defendant 


sued  for  breach  of  warranty  was 
inconsistent  and  -erroneous. — Lang- 
san  v.  Loft's  Inc.,  25  N.Y.S.2d  318. 

90.  111. — Bunyan   v.   American   Gly- 
cerin Co.,   230    Ill.App.    351. 

Okl. — Anthony  v.  Covington,   100   P. 

2d  461,  187  Okl.  27. 
Va. — Barnes    v.   Ashworth,    153    S.E. 

711,  154  Va.  218. 
33  C.J.  p  1115  note  18  [a]   (3),  (4). 

91.  111. — Bunyan  v,   American   Gly- 
cerin Co.,  230  Ill.App.  351. 

92.  N.Y.— -Dee  v.  Spencer,   251  N.Y. 
S.  311,  233  App.Div.  217,  followed 
in    251    N.Y.S.    864,    233    App.Div. 
894. 

93.  N.Y.— -Price   v.   Byan,    173    N.E. 
907,   255   N.Y.  16,  followed  in  175 
N.E.  297,  265  N.Y.  524. 

94.  N.Y.— Martin    v.    Gotham    Nat 
Bank,  221  N.Y.S.  661,  220  App.Div. 
541,  modified  on  other  grounds  1*62 
N.B.  91,  248  N.Y.  313,  reargument 
denied  164  N.E.  565,  249  N.Y.  513. 

84 


95.    La. — Collins    v.    Huck,    109    So* 
341,  161  La.  641. 


6.    Mo. — Delay    v. 
164  S.W.2d  154. 


Douglas,    App., 


97.  Fla. — Joseph  v.  Maxwell,  104  So. 
584,  89  Fla.  396. 

98.  Mo. — Hatton    v.    Sidman,    App., 
169  S.W.2d  91. 

99.  Pa. — Sullivan  v.  City  of  Pitts- 
burgh,  27  A.2d  270,   150   Pa.Super. 
252— Ford  v.  City  of  Philadelphia, 
24  A.2d  746,  148  Pa.Super.  195. 

Original    defendant's    secondary   lia- 
bility immaterial 

The  presence  or  absence  of  the 
original  defendant's  secondary  lia- 
bility cannot  affect  the  liability  of 
the  additional  defendants  to  plaintiff 
as  found  by  the  jury  at  the  trial. — 
Sullivan  v.  City  of  Pittsburgh,  27 
A.2d  270,  150  PaJSuper.  252, 

1.  Cal.— B.  £  B.  Sulphur  Co.  v, 
Kelley.  141  -P.2d  908,  61  Cal.App.2d 
3, 


49    C.  J.  S. 


JUDGMENTS 


a.  In  General 

At  common  law  and  in  the  absence  of  statute  chang- 
ing the  rule  a  joint  judgment  is  the  only  proper  judg- 
ment in  an  action  brought  as  a  joint  suit  against  sev- 
eral defendants;  but  a  joint  Judgment  cannot  be  ren- 
dered against  defendants  whose  liability  is  several  and 
not  Joint  or  who  are  not  ail  liable. 

At  common  law  and  in  the  absence  of  statute 
changing  the  rule  only  a  joint  judgment  may  be 
rendered  in  an  action  brought  as  a  joint  suit,2  as  an 
action  ex  contractu  against  several  defendants.3 
On  the  other  hand,  a  joint  judgment  may  not  be 
rendered  against  defendants  who  are  severally  and 
not  jointly  liable,4  or  where  each  defendant  is  not 
liable  to  the  full  extent  of  the  verdict.5  Also  a 
joint  judgment  against  two  or  more  defendants,  one 
of  whom  is  not  liable,  is  erroneous.6 

In  actions  at  common  law  for  tort,  while  judg- 
ment may  be  entered  against  certain  defendants, 
and  in  favor  of  others,  as  discussed  supra  §  35,  the 
judgment  must  be  a  joint  judgment  for  one  single 
amount  against  all  found  liable,7  and  cannot  exceed 
in  amount  that  for  which  judgment  could  have  been 
rendered  under  a  verdict  returned  against  a  partic- 
ular defendant8 

What  constitutes.  In  determining  the  character 
of  a  judgment  as  joint,  several,  or  joint  and  sev- 
eral, the  circumstances  with  respect  to  the  case  may 
be  considered,9  and  recourse  may  be  had  to  the 
pleadings  on  which  the  judgment  is  base<i10  The 
identity  of  issues  as  between  plaintiff  and  the  vari- 


ous defendants  does  not  determine  the  character  of 
the  judgment11  Ordinarily  it  is  determined  by 
the  nature  of  the  liabilities  or  interests  involved 
in  the  litigation,12  and  this  is  true,  although  in  form 
the  judgment  includes  several  defendants  under  the 
form  of  a  joint  judgment.18  Thus  judgments  have 
been  held  to  be  several  where  the  liabilities  of  de- 
fendants were  several;14  and  as  joint  and  several 
where  their  liabilities  were  joint  and  several,15  al- 
though there  is  other  authority  to  the  effect  that 
a  judgment  against  several  defendants  in  an  ac- 
tion on  a  joint  and  several  obligation  is  joint  and 
not  joint  and  several  as  to  all  defendants  therein.16 
A  judgment  that  plaintiff  recover  of  two  or  more 
named  defendants  a  specified  sum  of  money  is  in 
form  a  joint  judgment,17  and  a  judgment  against 
two  or  more  named  defendants,  and  each  of  them, 
constitutes  a  joint  and  several  judgment18  How- 
ever, there  is  authority,  particularly  in  jurisdictions 
where  by  statute  joint  contracts  have  been  made 
joint  and  several  and  authority  given  to  proceed 
against  one  or  more  of  those  liable  on  a  joint  ob- 
ligation, to  the  effect  that,  although  a  judgment  is 
rendered  against  two  or  more  parties  jointly,  the 
judgment  itgelf  is  a  joint  and  several  obligation.19 

b.  Under  Codes  and  Practice  Acts 

In  general  under  the  various  codes  and  practice  acts 
the  judgment  should  be  joint,  several,  or  joint  and  sev- 
eral, according  as.  the  liability  of  the  defendants  against 
whom  judgment  .Is  rendered  Is  joint,  several,  or  joint  and 
several. 


2.  Fla. — Harrington  v.  Bowman,  148 
So.    651,    106   Fla.   8*6. 

Conformity    to    verdict    or    findings 

see  infra '§§  55-58. 
Joint  or  several  judgment  in  action 

against: 

Executor  or  administrator  and 
other  party  see  Executors  and 
Administrators  §  793. 
Principal  and  surety  see  the  C.J. 
S.  title  Principal  and  Surety  § 
277,  also  50  C.J.  p  223  notes  2- 
4. 

Necessity  for  judgment  to-be  either 
for  or  against  all  plaintiffs  see  su- 
pra §  31. 

3.  Fla. — Edgar    v.    Bacon,    122    So. 
107,    .97     Fla.     679,     followed     in 
Wright   v.   Tatarian,   131  So.   183, 
100  Fla.  1366. 

4.  Md. — Union   Trust  Co.   of  Mary- 
land    v.    Poor   &    Alexander,    Inc., 
177  A.  923,  168  Md.  400. 

6.  M<L — Union  Trust  Co.  of  Mary- 
land v.  Poor  &  Alexander,  Inc., 
supra. 

6.  111.— Sergo  v.  Bloch,  263  Ill.App. 
198. 

7.  Mass.— Contakis  v.  Flavio,  108  N. 
E.  1045,  221  Mass.  259. 

33  C.J.  p  1124  note8. 


Judgment  should  be  joint  and  sever- 
al in  civil  action  for  conspiracy 
see  Conspiracy  §  32. 

8.  Mass. — Brooks  v.  Davis,  1  N.E.2d 
17,  294  Mass.  236. 

9.  Neb.— Whaley   v.    Matthews,    287 
N.W.  205,  136  Neb.  767. 

N.T.— Schultz  v.  U.  S.  Fidelity  & 
Guaranty  Co.,  94  N.E.  601,  201 
N.T.  230. 

Judgment  held  not  joint 

Neb.— Whaley  v.  Matthews,  287  N. 
W.  205,  13-6  Neb.  767. 

10.  Tex.— U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaranty 
Co.  ,v.    Richey,   Civ.App,,    18    S.W-, 
2d  231,  error  refused. 

11.  N.T. — -St  John  v.  Andrews  Inst. 
for    Girls,    85    N.E.    143,    192    N.T. 
882. 

12.  N.T.— Schultz  v.  U.   S.   Fidelity 
&  Guaranty  Co.,   94  N.E.   601,  201 
N.T.  230. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  18. 

13.  -Conn. — Gruber  v.  Friedman,  132 
A.  395,  104  Conn.  107. 

N.T.— Schultz  v.  U.  S.  Fidelity  & 
Guaranty  Co.,  94  NJE.  601,  201  N. 
T.  230. 


14.  Conn. — Gruber  v.  Friedman,  132 
A.  395,  104  Conn.  107. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  18  [b]. 

15.  Tex.— U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaran- 
ty Co.  v.  Kichey,  Civ.App.,  18  S.W. 
2d  231,  error  refused. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  18  [a3   (2). 

16.  Mich. — Rohrabacker    v.    Walsh, 
135  N.W.  907,  170  Mich.  59. 

17.  Neb. — Farney        v.        Hamilton 
County,  75  N.W.  44t  54  :Neb.  797. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  16. 

18.  OkL— Tucker  v.  Gautier,  164  P. 
2d  613. 

Double  recovery  not  indicated 

Judgment  that  plaintiff  recover  of 
defendants,  "and  each  of  them," 
did  not  signify  that  full  amount  of 
recovery  might  be  twice  collected 
from  defendants,  but  simply  indicat- 
ed joint  and  several  character  of  de- 
fendant's liability.— Watson  v.  Hil- 
ton, 166  S.E.  589,  203  N.C.  574, 

19.  Kan. — Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
Sloan   v.    Sheridan.    168    P.2d   545, 
546. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  20. 

Judgment  as  contract  within  statute 

making   joint '  contracts   joint  and 

several  see  supra  5  6. 


85 


36 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


In  general  tinder  the  various  codes  and  practice 
acts  in  an  action  against  several  defendants,  a  joint 
judgment  is  proper  against  defendants  whose  lia- 
bility is  joint  or  arises  out  of  joint  conduct;20  but 
it  is  improper  against  defendants  whose  liability 
is  not  joint,  although  each  may  be  severally  lia- 
ble,21 or  where  the  liability  of  defendants  and  the 
measure  of  recovery  are  proportional.22 

A  several  judgment  is  not  ordinarily  proper 
against  defendants  whose  liability  is  on  a  joint  ob- 
ligation or  other  joint  cause  of  action;23  but  such 
a  judgment  is  proper  in  an  action  against  several 
defendants  who  are  liable  on  a  joint  and  several  ob- 
ligation, or  on  a  cause  of  action  where  each  de- 
fendant is  liable  only  for  his  own  acts,  or  for  his 
proportionate  share  of  the  total  damage,  or  in  a 
different*  amount  from  his  codefendants*,  or  in  any 
case  where  separate  actions  might  properly  have 
been  maintained.24  The  test  as  to  whether  a  sev- 
eral judgment  may  be  had  is  whether  a  separate 
action  could  have  been  maintained.26 

A  joint  and  several  judgment  is  proper  against 
defendants  whose  liability  is  joint  and  several,26 


but  not  against  defendants  who  are  individually 
and  solely  liable  on  different  items  of  the  total 
amount  demanded.27 

Where  the  items  of  damages  are  distinct,  a  joint 
judgment  cannot  be  entered  unless  each  defendant 
is  liable  to  the  full  extent  of  plaintiffs  demand  or 
recovery.28  If  defendants  are  not  all  liable  to  the 
same  extent  on  the  liability  sued  on,  the  judgment 
may  be  for  different  amounts  against  them;29  and, 
where  one  of  the  several  defendants  is  not  liable 
for  all  the  items  of  damage  for  which  recovery  is 
allowed,  a  judgment  against  all  defendants  which 
does  not  segregate  the  damage  is  erroneous,30  at 
least  as  to  the  party  not  liable  for  the  full  amount.31 
However,  in  an  action  ex  contractu  a  joint  judg- 
ment has  been  held  proper  against  defendants  who 
are  liable  for  the  same  demand;32  and,  if  the  ac- 
tion is  on  a  joint  contract  or  obligation  against  sev- 
eral defendants  who  plead  and  defend  jointly,  the 
judgment  against  them  must  be  joint  and  not  sev- 
eral.33 

Where  some  defendants  are  liable  individually, 
while  others  are  liable  only  in  a  representative  ca- 


20.  Mo. — Kunst  v.  Walker,  App.f  43 
S.W.2d  886. 

Severance   of  actions   as   to   several 
parties    defendant    see    Actions    § 
119  b   (2). 
Discovery  of  assets 

In  action  by  administrators  to 
discover  assets,  joint  judgment  was 
proper  against  defendants  in  joint 
possession  of  the  concealed  assets. 
— Kunst  v.  Walker,  supra. 

21.  Ohio. — Larson  v.   Cleveland  Ry. 
Co.,    50    N.E.2d    163,    142    Ohio    St 
20. 

Pa. — First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Kendrew, 
160  A.  227,  105  Pa.Super.  142. 

Wash.— Argo  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Parker,  100 
P.  188,  52  Wash.  100. 

33  C.J.  p  1125  notes  11,  12. 

Harmless  error 

(1)  Joint    judgment    against    de- 
fendants   severally   and   not    jointly 
liable  is  harmless  error. — Decker  v. 
Trilling,  24  Wis..610,  615—33  C.J.  P 
1126  note  13. 

(2)  In  action  against  two  defend- 
ants who  are  each  liable  on  different 
causes  sued  on,  one  a  tort  and  the 
other    an    agreement    of    indemnity 
against    damages    from   the   tort,    a 
joint    judgment    against    them    for 
an   amount   not   in   excess   of  what 
they  would  have  been  liable  for  if 
sued  in  separate  actions  is  not  prej- 
udicial  to    the   rights    of   either   so 
as  to  warrant  a  reversal. — Adams  v. 
National  Automobile  Ins.  Co.,  133  P. 
2d  657,  56  Cal.App.2d  905. 

22.  Mass. — Foote  v.   Cotting,   80  N. 
B.   600,  195  Mass.  55,  15  L.R.A.,N. 
3.,  -693. 


23.  Colo. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Beatty   v.    Resler,    118    P.2d    1084, 
1085,  1086,  108  Colo.  434. 

Okl. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  City  of 
Sapulpa  v.  Young,  296  P.  418,  431, 
147  Okl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1117  note  27,  P  1124  note 
10. 

Joint  or  several  judgment  in  action 
against  stockholders  for  corporate 
debt  see  Corporations  §  702. 

24.  Gal. — Bakersfleld    Impr.    Co.    v. 
Bakersfield  Theater  Co.,  181  P.  851, 
40  Cal.App.  703. 

33C.J.  p  1125  note  11. 
Double  recovery 

Judgment  against  treasurer  and 
surety  for  treasurer's  failure  to  pay 
unsecured  deposit  in  insolvent  state 
bank  and  against  bank  and  banking 
commissioner  for  such  deposit  un- 
der guaranty  depository  law  was 
held  not  erroneous  as  allowing  dou- 
ble recovery. — Bolton  v.  City  of  De 
Leon,  Tex.Civ.App.,  283  S.W.  213. 

25.  Okl. — Corpus    Juris    guoted    in 
City  of  Sapulpa  v.  Toung,  296  P. 
418,  431,  147  Okl.  179. 

33  C.J.  p  1118  note  28,  p  1125,  note 
11  [a]. 

26.  Cal. — Gist  v.   Security  Trust  & 
Savings    Bank,    24    P.2d    153,    218 
Cal.  581. 

Tex. — Murchison  v.  Ballard,  Civ, 
App.,  178  S.W.2d  554,  error  re- 
fused— Dunning  v.  Badger,  Civ. 
App.,  74  S.W.2d  151,  error  dis- 
missed— Danciger  v.  Smith,  Civ. 
App.,  286  S.W.  635,  error  refused 
289  S.W.  679,  116  Tex.  269,  affirm- 

86 


ed   48    S.Ct.    344,    276   U.S.    542,   72 

L.Bd.  691. 

In  action  against  carriers  for  in- 
Jury  to  property  where  there  was 
evidence  of  damage  while  it  was 
in  possession  of  either  one  of  de- 
fendants, and  neither  offered  ex- 
planation of  how  or  when  damage 
occurred,  judgment  against  them 
jointly  and  severally  was  without 
error.— St  Louis,  S.  F.  &  T.  By.  Co. 
v.  J.  G.  Henderson  Cut  Stone  Co., 
Tex.Civ.App.,  275  S.W.  603. 
Solidary  judgment 

In  an  action  against  several  de- 
fendants on  an  obligation  in  solido, 
a  solidary  judgment  against  them 
is  proper.— E.  George  Rogers  &  Co. 
v.  Black,  La.App.,  155  So.  403. 

27.  Tex.— ^Btna  Casualty  &  Surety 
Co.  v.  State  for  Use  and  Benefit 
of    City    of    Dallas,    Civ.App.,    8-6 
S.W.2d   826,   error   dismissed. 

28.  Vt.— Murray  v.  Mattison,  32  A. 
479,  67  Vt.  553. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  14. 

29.  Or. — Closset  v.  Portland  Amuse- 
ment Co.,   293  P.   720,   134  Or.  414. 

30.  Cal.— Bloom    v.    Coates,    214    P. 
260,  190  Oal.  458. 

31.  N.M.— Niblack  v.  Seaberg  Hotel 
Co.,    76   P.2d   1156,   42   N.M.    281. 

32.  Tex. — Weimer      v.      Prince      & 
Prince,   Civ.App.,    246    S.W.    666. 

33.  Colo.— Beatty  v.  Resler,   118  P. 
2d  1084,  108  Colo.  434. 

u— Byrd  v.  Babin,  200  So.  294,  196 
La.  902. 
33  C.J.  p  1124  note  8. 


49    O.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


36 


pacity,  the  judgment  against  them  should  be  sever- 
al34 or  joint  and  several.35  In  an  action  to  impose 
liability  on  heirs  or  devisees  of  a  decedent  for  a 
liability  of  decedent,  the  judgment  should  be  sev- 
eral against  each  defendant  for  the  amount  received 
by  him  from  decedent,  not  to  exceed  the  sum  to 
which  plaintiff  is  entitled  ;8«  and  it  has  been' held 
proper  to  make  the  judgment  collectable  in  full  from 
any  of  several  defendants  who  received  that  amount 
or  more  from  the  estate  and  to  limit  it  as  to  de- 
fendants who  received  less  to  the  amount  each  re- 
ceived.3? 

Under  statutes  in  Louisiana  providing  therefor, 
a  joint  judgment  against  several  defendants  in  a 
suit  on  a  joint  obligation  must  be  against  each  de- 
fendant separately  for  his  proportion  of  the  debt,38 
which  is  determined  by  the  number  of  obligors;39 
and,  where  only  one  of  several  joint  obligors  is 
sued,40  or  the  court  erroneously  rejects  plaintiffs 
demand  against  all  the  joint  obligors,  except  one,41 
the  judgment  against  him  must  be  for  his  aliquot 
portion  of  the  obligation  and  not  the  entire  amount 
thereof. 

Actions  ex  delictu.    In  an  action  of  tort  against 


several  defendants,  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  a  joint 
judgment  if,  and  only  if,4*  he  shows  a  joint  tort43 
or  single  cause  of  action  against  them,44  even 
though  one  of  defendants  owed  plaintiff  a  higher 
degree  of  care  than  did  the  other;45  and,  if  de- 
fendants plead  jointly,  and  a  joint  verdict  is  given 
against  them,  the  judgment  must  be  joint  and  not 
several.46  It  has  also  been  held  in  some  jurisdic- 
tions that  defendant  tort-feasors  must  be  in  pari 
delicto  as  to  the  tortious  act  and  each  responsible 
for  the  entire  damage  for  a  joint  judgment  against 
them  to  be  proper;47  and,  where  a  primary  liabil- 
ity for  the  injury  rests  on  one  defendant  and  a  con- 
structive or  secondary  liability  on  another  defend- 
ant, and  their  breaches  of  duty  to  plaintiff  are  not 
through  concert  of  action  or  independent  but  con- 
current action,  a  joint  judgment  may  not  be  ren- 
dered against  them.48 

If  the  liability  of  defendants  is  joint  and  sev- 
eral, the  judgment  should  be  joint  and  several ;4d 
but  a  joint  and  several  judgment  should  not  be  ren- 
dered unless  it  is  established  that  defendants  were 
joint  tort-feasors,50  and  is  improper  where  it  ap- 
pears that  defendants  are  not  liable  on  the  same 
torts  but  are  solely  and  independently  liable  on  dif- 


34.    Ky.-^Gray  v.   McDowell,  5  T.B. 

Mon.  501. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  15. 
3&i    Cal. — Gist  v.  Security  Trust  & 

Savings    Bank,    24    P.2d    153,    218 

Cal.  581. 

36.  Ky. — Ransdell    v.    Threlkeld,    4 
Bush  347. 

33  C.J.  p  112S  note  11  [h]  (1),  (2). 

37.  Ky. — Clark's  Adm'x  v.  Callahan, 
288   S.W.   301,   216  Ky.   674. 

38.  La. — Loussade    v.    Hartman,    16 
La.  117 — Hagedorn  v.  Klotz,  App., 
185   So.   658— Simon  v.  Selber,  1*30 
So.  £45,  14  La.App.  642. 

39.  La. — Loussade    v.    Hartman,    16 
La.  117. 

Obligor's  portion. 

Each  obligor  answers  for  an  equal 
part  of  the  debt,  unless  the  parties 
have  expressed  a  different  intention. 
— EDagerdorn  v.  Klotz,  La.App.,  185 
So.  658. 

40.  La. — Hagedorn   v.  Klotz,   supra. 
Plaintiff  must  show  other  obligors 

where  he  sues  joint  obligor  sepa- 
rately, in  order  that  the  judgment 
may  fix  the  proportion  of  the  debt 
for  which  each  defendant  is  con- 
demned.— Hagerdorn  v.  Klotz,  supra. 

41.  La. — Simon    v.    Selber,    190    So. 
645,  14  La.App.  642. 

42.  Fla. — Gulf  Refining  Co.  v.  Wil- 
kinson, 114  So.  503,  94  Fla.  664. 

33  C.J.  p  112*6  note  24. 
lEssential  requirement* 

A  "joint  judgment"  against  two  or 


more  tort-feasors  is  proper  only 
where,  because  of  their  relationship, 
concert  of  action,  or  independent  but 
concurrent  action,  each  is  vicarious- 
ly responsible  for  wrongful  act  of 
the  others  to  extent  of  entire  dam- 
age.— Larson  v.  Cleveland  Ry.  Co., 
50  N.E.2d  163,  142  Ohio  St.  20. 
Permissive  joinder  JinmtHoieut 

The  permissive  joinder  of  defend- 
ants is  not  enough  to  warrant  a 
"joint  judgment"  against  tort-fea- 
sors unless  they  are  joint  tort-fea- 
sors.— Larson  v.  Cleveland  Ry.  Co., 
supra. 

43.    N.J.— Mogab    v.    Antrim    Motor 

Co.,  143  A.  864,  7  N.XMisc.  15. 
Pa.— Moraski   v.  'Philadelphia  Rapid 

Transit   Co.,    142   A.    276,    293   Pa. 

224. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  2-3. 
Immaterial  injury  by  individual 

Where  seepage  causing  injury 
came  principally  from  canal  operat- 
ed for  joint  benefit  of  irrigation  dis- 
tricts, joint  judgment  was  proper, 
although  slight  damage  may  have 
been  caused  by  seepage  from  reser- 
voir owned  by  only  one  district — 
Ketcham  v.  Modesto  Irr.  Dist.,  26  P. 
2d  87«,  135  CaLApp.  180. 

Concert  of  action,  by   tort-feasors 
makes  joint  judgment  against  them 
proper. — Fahrer   v.   Blumenthal,    190 
A.  206,  125  Pa.Super.  568. 
Joint  employer 

In  action  against  two  companies 
for  injuries  caused  by  person  who 

87 


was  employee  of  both,  judgment 
holding  both  companies  liable  in 
solido  was  proper. — Anderson  v. 
George  A.  Hormel  &  Co.,  136  So.  906, 
18  La.App.  398. 
44.  Ohio. — Larson  v.  Cleveland  Ry. 

-Co.,    50    N.E.2d    163,    142    Ohio    St 

20. 

46.  Pa.— Moraski  v.  Philadelphia 
Rapid  Transit  Co.,  142  A.  276,  293 
Pa.  224. 

46.  Fla.— Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Ebert,  138   So.   4,  102  Fla.   641. 

33  C.J.  p  1127  note  28. 

Judgment    held    against    join*    tort- 

feasors 

Findings  showing  that  defendants 
by  themselves  and  agents  acted  so 
negligently  that  plaintiff  had  judg- 
ment showed  judgment  against  joint 
tort-feasors. — Salter  v.  Lombard!,  8 
P.2d  38,  116  CaLApp.  602. 

47.  Ohio. — Larson  v.  Cleveland  Ry. 
Co.,    50    N.B.2d    163,    142    Ohio    St 
20. 

48.  Ohio. — Larson  v.  Cleveland  Ry. 
Co.,  Supra. 

Joint  judgment  held  improper 
Ohio. — Larson  v.   Cleveland  Ry.  Co., 
supra. 

49.  Cal. — Phipps  v.   Superior   Court 
In  and  for  Alameda  County,  89  P. 
2d   698,    32   CaLApp. 2 d   371. 

La.— Williams  v.  Pelican  Natural 
Gas  Co.,  175  So.  28,  187  La.  462. 

60.  Tex. — American  Mortg.  Corpo- 
ration v.  Dunnam,  Civ.App.,  59  S. 
W.2d  1095,  error  dismissed. 


36 


JUDGMENTS 


49    O.J.S. 


ferent  torts  alleged.51  A  joint  judgment  has  been 
held  proper  against  defendants,  each  of  whom  is 
responsible  for  the  same  sum  of  money,52  or  whose 
independent  tortious  acts  produced  a  single  injury, 
objections  to  the  trial  in  one  proceeding  having 
been  waived.58 

Since  joint  tort-feasors  are  each  individually  lia- 
ble to  the  party  injured  for  the  full  extent  of  the 
damage  done,  and  not  only  for  a  proportionate  part, 
as  considered  in  the  CJ.S.  title  Torts  §  34,  also  62 
CJ.  p  1131  notes  52,  S3,  ordinarily  the  judgment 
cannot  segregate  or  apportion  the  liability  of  the 
joint  tort-feasors;54  but  it  must  be  in  one  amount55 
and  jointly  and  severally56  against  each  and  all  of 
defendants  against  whom  a  joint  liability  is  estab- 
lished.57 However,  any  statutory  limitation  of  lia- 
bility applicable  to  any  defendant,  as  distinguished 
from  the  full  liability  of  other  defendants,  may  and 
should  be  incorporated  in  the  judgment  entered  on 
the  verdict;58  and,  where  a  joint  and  several  lia- 
bility is  established  as  to  some  of  the  defendants 
and  a  separate  liability  for  only  a  portion  of  the  to- 
tal against  others,  the  judgment  may  run  against 
the  various  defendants  in  the  amounts  and  accord- 
ing to  the  liabilities  established.59  Where  the  lia- 


bility of  defendant  tort-feasors  is  direct  and  sev- 
eral, as  well  as  joint,  a  judgment  for  different 
amounts  against  the  various  defendants  has  been 
held  not  improper.60 

If  the  jury,  without  fixing  the  total  amount  of 
plaintiffs  recovery,  returns  several  verdicts  or  in 
one  verdict  assesses  each  defendant  separately,  it 
has  been  held  that,  if  the  same  Amount  was  assessed 
against  each  defendant,  a  joint  judgment  should  be 
entered  against  all  defendants  for  that  amount,  not 
the  total,61  or,  if  different  amounts  were  assessed 
against  the  various  defendants,  plaintiff  may  enter 
a  joint  judgment  against  all  defendants  for  the 
largest  amount  found  against  any  of  them.62  There 
is  other  authority,  however,  which  holds  that,  where 
separate  verdicts  for  different  amounts  are  re- 
turned against  joint  tort-feasors,  the  lesser  amount 
being  against  defendant  who  actively  committed  the 
wrong  and  on  whose  culpability  the  other  defend- 
ant's liability  is  predicated,  the  judgment  should  be 
for  such  lesser  amount63  It  has  also  been  held 
that,  in  an  action  on  a  joint  tort,  if  the  verdict 
assesses  each  defendant  separately  for  different 
amounts,  judgment  cannot  be  rendered  against  all 
the  defendants  for  the  total  of  the  different 
amounts.64 


51.  Wis.— Hall    v.    Frankel,    197   N. 
W.  820,  ia3  Wis.  247. 

52.  Ga.-— Regal  Textile  Co.  v.  Fell,  6 
•S.E.2d  908,  189  Ga.  581. 

Corporation  and  stockholders 

Joint  judgment  against  corpora- 
tion and  stockholder  or  officer  who 
appropriated  all  of  corporation's  as- 
sets for  amount  of  overpayment 
made  to  corporation  is  proper.— 
Regal  Textile  Co.  y.  Fell,  supra. 

53.  Mo.— Stein  v.  Rainey,  286   S.W. 
63,  315  Mo.  535. 

54.  Cal. — Phipps   v.    Superior  Court 
in  and  for  Alameda  County,  89  P. 
2d   698,    32   Cal.App,2d   371— Curtis 
v.  San  (Pedro  Transp.  Co.,  62  P.2d 
528,   10  Cal.App.2d  547, 

111.— Koltz    y.    Jahaaske,    38    N.E.2d 

973,  312  IlLApp.  62-3. 
Mo. — Polkowski  v.  fit   Louis  Public 

Service    Co.,    68    S.W.2d    884,    229 

Mo.App.  24. 
Tenn. — Donegan  v.  Beasley,  181  S.W. 

2d  379,  27  Tenn.App.  369. 
33  C.J.  P  1127  note  30. 

55.  111.— Koltz  v.  Jahaaske,  <38  N.E. 
2d   973,  <312   IlLApp.    623. 

Mo. — Brown  v.  Reorganization  Inv. 
Co.,  166  S.W.2d  476,  350  Mo.  407— 
Electrolytic  Chlorine  Co.  v.  Wal- 
lace &  Tiernan  Co.,  41  S.W.2d  1049, 
328  Mo.  782,  78  A.L.R.  930— Delay 
v.  Douglas,  App.,'  164  S.W.2d  154 
— Polkowski  v.  St.  Louis  Public 
Service  Co.,  68  S.W.2d  884,  229  Mo. 
App.  24. 


Tenn. — Donegan  v.  Beasley,  181  S.W. 

2d  379,  27  Tenn.App.  369. 
Tex. — Callihan    v.    White,    Civ.App., 

139  S.W.2d  129. 

56.  Mass. — Gross-Loge     Des     Deut- 
schen    Ordens    Der   Harugari   Des 
Staates    Massachusetts   v.    Cusson, 
17  N.E.2d  316,   301  Mass.  '332. 

Tex. — Callihan    v.    White,    Civ.App., 

139  S.W.2d  129. 
Double  liability  not  imposed 

Decree  requiring  defendant  part- 
ner and  an  attaching  creditor  to  pay 
value  of  partnership  assets  wrong- 
fully attached  did  not  amount  to 
imposition  of  double  liability. — Boy- 
er  v.  Bowles,  37  N.E.2d  489,  310 
Mass.  134. 

57.  Mass. — Gross-Loge     Des     Deut- 
schen    Ordens    Der    Harugari    Des 
•Staates  Massachusetts   v.   Cusson, 
17  N.B.2d  -316,  301  Mass.  332.      - 

Mo. — Electrolytic     Chlorine     Co.     v. 

Wallace    &   Tiernan   Co.,    41    S.W. 

2d    1049,    328    Mo.    782,    78    A.L.R. 

930. 
Tenn, — Donegan  v.  Beasley,  181  S.W. 

2d   -379.    27   Tenn.App.    369. 
Tex. — Burd  v.  San  Antonio  Southern 

Ry.  Co.,  Com.App.,   261   S.W.  1021. 

58.  Cal. — Sparks    v.    Berntsen,    121 
P.2d  497,  19  Cal.2d  308-^Phipps  v. 
Superior  Court  in  and  for  Alameda 
County,    89    P..2d   698,    32   Cal.App. 
2d  <371. 

59.  Mass. — Gross-Loge  *  Des     Deut- 
schen    Ordens    Der   Harugari   Des 

83 


•Staates   Massachusetts  v.   Cusson, 
17   N.E.2d   316,    301   Mass.   332. 
GO.    Cal. — Guberman    v.    Weiner,    51 
P.2d  1141,  10  Cal.App.2d  401. 

61.  N.T. — Farber  v.  Demino,  173  N. 
E.  223,  254  N.T.  363,  followed  in  G. 
A.  Baker  &  Co.  v.  Polygraphic  Co. 
of  America,  193  N.B.  265,  265  N.T. 
447,    reargument   denied    193    N.E. 
294,  265  N.T.  508. 

62.  Cal. — Curtis      v.       San      Pedro 
Transp.   Co.,   52   P.2d  528,   10  Cal. 
App.2d  547. 

N.T.— Berber    v.    Demino,    173    N.E. 
k     223,  254  If.T.  363,  followed  in  G.  A. 
Baker  &  Co.  v.  Polygraphic  Co.  of 
America,    193    N.E.    265,    265    N.T. 
447,    reargument    denied    193    N.E. 
294,  2-65  N.T.  508— Polsey  v.  Wal- 
dorf-Astoria,   214    N.T.S.    600,    216 
App.Div.  86. 
33  C.J.  p  1127  note  31. 

On  consolidation  for  trial  of  sep- 
arate actions  against  master  and 
servant  for  tort,  the  judgment 
against  each  defendant  should  be 
for  the  highest  of  different  amounts 
assessed  against  the  different  de- 
fendants by  the  jury. — Kinsey  v. 
William  Spencer  &  Son  Corporation, 
300  N.T.S.  391,  165  Misc.  143,  affirm- 
ed 8  N.T.S.2d  529,  255  App.Div.  995, 
affirmed  22  N.E.2d  168,  281  N.T.  601. 

63.  Ark.— Wear-tJ-Well   Shoe   Co.  v. 
Armstrong,  3  S.W.2d  698,  176  Ark. 
592. 

64.  Miss.— Gillespie  v.  Olive  Branch 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


36 


Under  some  statutes  several  judgments  may  be 
rendered  against  joint  tort-feasors  for  separate  or 
proportionate  amounts,65  at  least  where  defendants 
have  severed  in  their  defense,  and  separate  verdicts 
have  been  found  against  them.6^ 

In  ejectment  it  has  been  held  that,  if  there  are 
several  defendants,  there  may  be  a  joint  judgment 
against  all,67  although  they  are  severally  in  exclu- 
sive possession  of  different  parts  of  the  premises, 
no  request  for  a  several  judgment  being  made;68 
but  there  is  other  authority  to  the  effect  that  a  joint 
judgment  is  not*  proper  against  defendants  who  oc- 
cupy or  claim  separate  and  distinct  portions  of  the 
realty  involved,69  and  that,  if  plaintiff  is  not  re- 
quired to  elect  which  of  several  defendants  in  sep- 
arate possession  he  will  proceed  against,  judg- 
ment may  be  rendered  against  each.70  Where  de- 
fendants plead  jointly  in  trespass  for  mesne  profits 
but  separate  verdicts  are  found,  there  may  be  a 
judgment  against  one  and  nolle  prosequi  as  to  the 


other.71  Where,  however,  one  defendant  enters 
subsequent  to  another  it  is  error,  in  a  joint  action 
of  ejectment  and  for  mesne  profits,  to  render  a 
joint  judgment  against  both  from  the  time  of  the 
entry  of  the  latter.72 

c.  Disposition  of  Case  as  to  All  Parties;  Sep- 
arate Judgments 

At  common  law  and  under  statutes  so  providing  only 
one  final  Judgment,  which  must  dispose  of  the  case  as 
to  all  the  parties.  Is  proper  In  an  action;  but,  under 
permissive  statutes,  separate  judgments,  may  be  ren- 
dered at  the  same  time  or  different  times  against  the 
various  defendants  in  actions  in  which  several  Judg- 
ments are  proper. 

At  common  law,  and  in  the  absence  of  statute 
changing  the  rule,  and  under  statutes  expressly  so 
providing,  only  one  final  judgment  may  be  entered 
in  an  action,  as  discussed  infra  §  65,  which  must 
completely  dispose  of  the  whole  case  as  to  all  the 
parties.73  The  rule  is  applicable  in  tort  actions74 


Building  &  Lumber  Co.,  164  So.  42, 
174  Miss.  154. 

65.  Oa. — Gormley   v.    Slicer,    172    S. 
E.  21,  178  Ga.  85,  answer  conform- 
ed to  172  S.E.  575,  48  Ga.App.  177. 

33  C.J.  p  1127  note  32. 

Widow  and  heirs  of  tort»f easor 

Judgment  against  widow  and  heirs 
of  deceased  tort-feasor  should  be 
against  each  separately  for  his  pro- 
portion of  damages,  but  it  may  be 
against  them  in  solido  for  costs. — ' 
Hunter  v.  Laurent,  104  So.  747,  158 
La.  874. 
Counterclaim  in  favor  of  defendant 

Where  defendants  are  all  liable 
for  full  amount  of  damages  estab- 
lished and  one  defendant  is  enti- 
tled to  judgment  on  a  counterclaim 
against  plaintiff,  Judgment  against 
all  defendants  for  full  amount  of 
damages  established  will  be  award- 
ed plaintiff,  and  also  judgment  will 
be  entered  against  plaintiff  in  favor 
of  the  defendant  entitled  to  the 
counterclaim  for  the  amount  there- 
of.— Bandych  v.  Ross,  26  N.Y.S.2d 
830. 

66.  Tex. — Rowan  v.  Daniel,  49  S.W. 
686,  20  Tex.Civ.App.  321. 

33  C.J.  .p  1127  note  33. 

67.  Dal. — Ellis  v.  Jeans,  26  CaL  272. 

68.  CaL— Ellis  v.  Jeans,  supra, 

69.  Ind. — Kennedy    v.    Christian,    2 
Ind.  503. 

70.  Mo.— Norton  v.  Reed,   161  S.W. 
842,  253  Mo.  236. 

71.  Pa. — Chambers    v.     Lapsley,     7 
Pa.  24. 

72.  Fla, — Ashmead    v.    Wilson,     22 
Fla,  255. 

73.  Fla. — Merchants'    &    Mechanics' 
Bank  v.  Sample,  124  So.  49,  94  Fla, 


759,    rehearing   denied   125    So.    1, 
98  Fla.  759. 

Mo. — Electrolytic  Chlorine  Co.  v. 
Wallace  &  Tiernan  Co.,  41  S.W.2d 
1049,  328  Mo.  782,  78  A.L.R.  930 
— Neal  v.  Curtis  &  Co.  Mfg.  Co., 
41  S.W.2d  543,  328  Mo.  389— State 
ex  rel.  Cunningham  v.  Haid,  40 
S.W.2d  1048,  328  Mo.  208— Ex 
parte  Fowler,  275  S.W.  529,  310 
Mo.  339— Baker  v.  St.  Louis,  88 
S.W.  74,  189  Mo.  375— Hatton  v. 
Sidman,  App.,  169  S.W.Sd  91— 
A.  M.  Legg  Shoe  Co.  v.  Brown 
Leather  Co.,  -  App.,  249  S.W.  147. 
Tex. — Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Ulmer, 
Com. App.,  28-6  S.W.  193 — Edmond- 
son  v.  Carroll,  Civ.App.,  134  S.W. 
2d  378,  error  dismissed,  judgment 
correct— Texas  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Miller,  Civ.App.,  114  S.W.2d  600— 
Pfeifer  v.  Johnson,  Civ.App.,  70 
S.W.2d  203. 
33  C.J.  p  1128  note  86. 
Retention  of  separate  character  for 
purposes  of  judgment  of  actions 
tried  together  see  the  C.J.S.  title 
Trial  §  6,  also  64  C.J.  p  37  note 
81. 

Single  or  separate  judgment  in  con- 
solidated action  see  Actions  §  113 
a  (5). 

Defendant  is  entitled  to  a  judg- 
ment that  will  finally  settle  the 
claims  of  all  plaintiffs  and  bind  all 
parties,  so  that  no  suit  may  there- 
after be  made  on  the  same  cause 
of  action. — Caniano  v.  Dependable 
Amusement  Co.,  8  A.2d  830,  123  N.J. 
Law  419. 

Invalidity  as  to  person*  not  parties 
Invalidity  of  portion  of  judgment 
purporting  to  determine  rights  of 
persons  not  parties  to  the  action 
would  not  affect  part  dealing  with 
defendants  who  were  before  the 


court  so  as  to  render  it  interlocu- 
tory and  not  final. — Wood  v.  Gulf 
Production  Co.,  Tex.Civ.App.,  100 
S.W.2d  412. 

Judgment  held  to  dispose  of  case  as 
to  all  parties 

(1)  Generally. 

Mo. — Lochmoeller  v.  Kiel,  App.,  137 

S.W.2d  625. 
Tex, — Pfeifer   v.    Johnson,    Civ.App., 

70    S.W.2d    203 — State    v.    Harvey, 

Civ.App.,  15  S.W.2d  82. 

(2)  A  judgment  which  disposed  of 
all  parties  named  in  amended  plead- 
ings on  which  the  trial  was  had  was 
a    final    judgment,    even    though    it 
failed   to   dispose  of  parties   named 
in  supplemental  pleadings  who  were 
dismissed  from  the  cause  by  failure 
to  name  them  in  the  amended  plead- 
ings subsequently  filed. — Brennan  v. 
Greene,  Tex,Civ.App.,  154  S.W.2d  528, 
error  refused. 

74.    Cal. — Phipps   v.    Superior  Court 
in  and  for  Alameda   County,   89 
P.2d   698,  32  Cal.App.2d  371. 

Ind. — Indianapolis  Traction  &  Ter- 
minal Co.  v.  Holtsclaw,  81  N.B. 
1084.  40  Ino^App.  311. 

Mo. — Brown  v.  Reorganization  Inv. 
Co.,  166  S.W.2d  476,  350  Mo'.  407 
— Electrolytic  Chlorine  Co.  v.  Wal- 
lace &  Tiernan  Co.,  41  S.W.2d  1049, 
328  Mo.  782,  78  A.L.K.  930— Pol- 
kowskl  v.  St.  Louis  Public  Service 
Co.,  68  S.W.2d  884,  229  Mo.App. 
24. 

Pa, — MacHolme  v.  Cochenour,  167 
A.  647,  109  Pa.Super.  563. 

Tenn. — Donegan  v.  Beasley,  181  S.W. 
2d  -879,  27  Tenn.App.  569. 

One  Judgment  record 
There    can   be   but   one   judgment 

record  which  must  include  both  the 

judgment     in     favor     of     plaintiff 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


against  joint  tort-feasors,75  and  in  actions  on  joint 
and  several  obligations  which  plaintiff  has  elected 
to  enforce  as  a  joint  obligation.76  It  applies,  even 
though  the  rights  or  liabilities  of  a  particular  de- 
fendant or  defendants  appear  from  the  proceedings 
or  are  determined  prior  to  the  completion  of  the 
case,77  where  the  cause  of  action  is  joint  and  sev- 
eral and  defendants  answer  jointly,78  and  however 
independent  of  each  other  the  respective  defenses 
of  the  various  defendants  may  be.79  Each  suit 
which  may  be  brought  on  the  individual  liability 
of  a  number  of  persons  jointly  and  severally  liable 
on  an  obligation  constitutes  a  separate  cause  within 
the  rule  against  more  than  one  final  judgment  in 
an  action.8** 

Judgment  should  be  entered  as  to  all  the  defend- 
ants.81 If  a  final  judgment  does  not  dispose  of  the 
case  as  to  all  the  defendants,  it  is  erroneous;82 
and  in  spme  instances  it  has  been  held  that  a  judg- 
ment which  does  not  do  so  is  not  a  final  judg- 


ment83 but  remains  under  the  control  of  the  court.84 
However,  it  has  been  held  that  in  tort  actions  such 
a  judgment  against  some  only  of  defendants  is  at 
most  a  harmless  irregularity,  even  as  to  defendants 
against  whom  alone  it  is  rendered.85  An  addi- 
tional judgment  entered  against  other  defendants 
after  final  judgment  was  entered  against  a  default- 
ing defendant  has  been  held  to  be  merely  errone- 
ous and  voidable,  and  not  void.86  It  is  unnecessary 
for  the  judgment  specifically  to  dispose  of  the  rights 
of  all  the  parties,  but  it  is  sufficient  if  the  rights 
of  those  not  specifically  disposed  of  are  disposed  of 
by  implication.87 

Ordinarily  the  entry  of  judgment  against  one  or 
more  joint  defendants  in  jurisdictions  where  only 
one  final  judgment  in  an  action  is  proper  operates 
as  a  discontinuance  of  the  case  as  to  all  the  others, 
and  merges  the  cause  of  action  in  the  judgment, 
preventing  further  prosecution  of  it  against  the  oth- 
ers in  the  same  or  subsequent  actions.88  Thus,  if 


against  defendants  found  liable  and 
that  in  favor  of  defendants  found 
not  liable. — Hundhausen  v.  Bond,  36 
Wis.  29. 
75.  Mo. — Barr  v.  Nafziger  Baking 

Co..  41  :S.W.2d  559,  328  Mo.  423. 
78.    Pla. — Merchants'    &    Mechanics' 

Bank  v.  Sample,  124  So.  49,  98  Fla. 

759,  rehearing  denied  125  So.  1,  98 

Fla.  759. 

77.  Cal. — Hanna  v.  De  Garmo,  73  P. 
830,  140  Cal.  172. 

33  C.J.  p  1128  note  36  [a],  [d]. 

78.  N.Y.— Reade  v.   Halpin,   167  N. 
Y.S.  482,  180  App.Div.  161. 

79.  Tex. — Wooters   v.    Kauffman,    3 
S.W.    465,    67    Tex    488— Kline   v. 
Power,  Civ.App.,  114  S.W.2d  617— 
Texas  Cities  Gas  Co.  v.  Dickens, 
Civ.App.t   133   S.W.2d  810. 

80.  Tex. — Comer    v.     Brown,    Com. 
App.,  285  S.W.  807. 

81.  Cal.— Rubin  v.  Platt  Music  Co., 
268  P.  396,  92  Cal.App.   203. 

82.  Mo.— -Cox  v.    Frank   L.    Schaab 
Stove  &  Furniture  Co.,  58  -S.W.2d 
700,  -332  Mo.  492,  transferred,  see, 
App.,  -67  S.W.2d  790— Strawhun  v. 
Farrar,  App.,  296  S.W.   191 — Crow 
v.   Crow,   100   S.W.   im,  124  Mo. 
App.  120, 

33  C.J.  p  1128  note  37. 
Oodefandant'g  plea  in  issue 

Judgment  against  one  in  action  on 
note  against  defendants  jointly,  tak- 
en while  other's  plea  of  payment 
was  on  file,  was  erroneous. — Mer- 
chants' &  Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Sam- 
ple, 124  So.  49,  98  Fla.  759,  rehear- 
ing denied  125  So.  1,  98  Fla.  7-69. 

83.  Mo. — State    v.    Canterbury,    101 
S.W.  678,  124  Mo.App.  241. 

Tex. — Martin  v.   Crow,    28    Tex.   613 
— Gathings    T.     Robertson,    Com. 


App.,     276     S.W.     218— Pfeifer    v. 
Johnson,   Civ.App.,   70   S.W.2d  203. 

84.  Tex. — Martin   v.   Crow,    28   Tex. 
613 — Gathings   v.    Robertson,   Civ. 
App.,    264    S.W.    173,    reversed   on 
other  grounds,  Com.App.,  276  S.W. 
218. 

85.  Me.— Corpus     Juris     cited     in 
Hincks  Coal  Co.  v.  Milan,   193  A. 
243,  245,  135  Me.  203. 

Mo. — Jackson    v.     City    of    Maiden, 

App.,  72  S.W.2d  850. 
33  C.J.  p  1128  note  39. 
Beason  for  role 

There  is  no  contribution  between 
tort-feasors. — Davis  v.  Taylor,  41 
111.  405—33  C.J.  p  1128  note  40. 

86.  Fla. — Merchants'    &    Mechanics' 
Bank  v.  Sample,  124  So.  49,  98  Fla. 
759,  rehearing  denied  125  So.  1,  98 
Fla.  759. 

87.  Tex. — Texas    Life    Ins.    Co.    v. 
Miller,  Civ.App.,  114  S.W.2d  600— 
Traders  &  General  Ins.  Co.  v.  <Pool, 
Civ.App.,    105    S.W.2d    492,    error 
dismissed. 

&t  action  "by  husband  and  wife 

Judgment  for  wife  alone  for  per- 
sonal injuries  to  her  is  final,  being 
against  husband  by  necessary  im- 
plication.— Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Ul- 
mer,  Tex.Civ.App.,  282  S.W.  305,  af- 
firmed, Com. App.,  286  S.W.  193. 
Judgment  held  by  implication 

(1)  Generally. — Miller     v.     Texas 
Life   Ins.   Co.,    Tex.Civ.App.,    123    S. 
W.2d  756,  error  refused. 

(2)  There   was   in   effect  a  judg- 
ment for  defendant  bank,  the  judg- 
ment entry  showing  that  complaint 
was  amended  by  striking  It  out  as 
defendant,  leaving  only  an  individual 
defendant,    and    judgment    rendered 
being  against   him   alone. — Richard- 

90 


son  v.  Stinson,  100  So.  209,  211  Ala. 
254. 

(3)  Where  subject  matter  in  con- 
troversy is  awarded  to  some  of  par- 
ties, fact  that  one  or  more  of  them 
get  nothing  is  tantamount  to  judg- 
ment   against    each    of   them. — Roe- 
denbeck  Farms  v.  Broussard,  127  S. 
W.2d  168,  133  Tex.   12-6,  appeal  dis- 
missed 60  S.Ct.  145,  308  U.S.  -514,  84 
L.Ed.  4*38,  and  Christie  v.  Broussard, 
60  -S.Ct.   145,   308  U.S.   514,    84  L.Ed. 
438— Whitmire   v.   Powell,    125    S.W. 
889,   103   Tex.    232— Pfeifer  v.   John- 
son, Tex.Civ.App.,  70  S.W.2d  203. 

(4)  Effect    of    judgment    against 
only  one  defendant  is  to  hold  others 
not    liable. — Obermeier   v.    Mortgage  . 
Co.    Holland-America,    259    P.    1064, 
123     Or.     469,     modified     on     other 
grounds    260    P.    1099,    123    Or.    469, 
costs  retaxed  262  P.  261,  123  Or.  469. 

88.    Miss. — Daves    v.    Mahorner,    41 

Miss.  552. 
N.J.— Coles  v.  McKenna,   76  A.   344, 

80    N.XLaw   48— Turk  v.    Leitner, 

194  A.  619,  15  N.J.Misc.  '664. 
33  C.J.  p  1129  note  42. 

Continuation  of  cause  to  final 
judgment,  with  concurrence  of  all 
parties  except  those  whose  pleas  of 
privilege  to  be  sued  in  the  county  of 
their  residence  had  been  sustained, 
amounted  to  abandonment  of  cause 
of  action  against  them  and  their 
dismissal  from  suit. — Brown  v.  Gor- 
man Home  Refinery,  Tex.Civ.App., 
276  S.W.  787,  affirmed  Comer  v. 
Brown,  Com. App.,  285  S.W.  307. 
In  tort  actions 

A  separate  judgment  against  one 
or  more  of  several  defendants 
amounts  to  an  informal  dismissal 
of  the  action  as  to  the  other  defend- 
ants.— Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Co,  v. 


49    O.J1S. 


JUDGMENTS 


36 


final  judgment  is  entered  against  a  defaulting  de- 
fendant,8^  or  against  a  defendant  who  admits  his 
liability  on  certain  items,90  it  is  improper  to  proceed 
with  the  trial  and  render  another  and  additional 
judgment  against  other  defendants. 

If  the  rights  or  liabilities  of  a. particular  defend- 
ant or  defendants  appear  from  the  proceedings  or 
are  determined  prior  to  the  completion  of  the  case, 
final  judgment  as  to  such  defendant  or  defendants 
will  not  be  entered  in  the  action  at  that  time,  but 
it  will  be  held  in  abeyance  until  proper  disposition 
of  the  entire  cause  has  been  determined  when  final 
judgment  as  to  all  the  parties  will  be  entered.91  If, 
in  such  case,  however,  plaintiff  desires  to  take  judg- 
ment against  defendants  whose  liability  has  been 
made  to  appear,  he  should  obtain  a  severance  of  the 
action  into  two  actions,  enter  judgment  in  one,  and 
proceed  with  the  other  to  judgment  against  the 
defendants  in  that  action,  as  discussed  in  Actions  § 
119  b  (2)  ;  and,  if  judgment  is  entered  against  one 
of  the  parties  prior  to  severance,  plaintiff  must  ob- 
tain a  vacation  of  the  judgment  and  severance  of 
the  action  before  he  may  proceed  with  the  action 


and  obtain  judgment  against  the  other  defendant 
or  defendants*9^ 

Separate  and  distinct  judgments  cannot  be  ren- 
dered against  defendants  sued  jointly,93  even  where 
the  action  is  on  a  contract  which  is  both  joint  and 
several.94  Where  several  defendants  are  all  liable, 
but  for  different  amounts,  plaintiff  must  elect  or 
the  court  order  which  of  them  shall  be  discharged.95 
In  such  case  judgment  should  not  be  entered  against 
some  only  of  the  several  defendants,  unless  plaintiff 
has  previously  discontinued  against  the  other  de- 
fendant or  defendants.96 

Wlwre  statutes  authorise  separate  judgments. 
Separate  and  distinct  judgments  may  be  rendered 
against  the  several  defendants  under  statutes  which 
provide  that  more  than  one  judgment  or  separate 
judgments  may  be  rendered  in  the  same  cause,97 
or  that,  when  a  several  judgment  is  proper,  judg- 
ment may  be  given  for  or  against  one  or  more  of 
defendants,98  or  that  judgment  may  be  rendered 
against  any  of  defendants,  severally,  when  plaintiff 
would  be  entitled  to  a  judgment  against  such  de- 
fendants if  the  action  had  been  against  them  sev- 


Evert,  138  So.  4,  102  Fla.  641—18  O. 

J.    p    1166    note   44—33   C.J.   p   1129 

note  41. 

39.  Colo. — Exchange  Bank  of  Den- 
ver v.  Ford,  8  P.  449,  7  Colo.  314. 

Fla.— Merchants'  &  Mechanics'  Bank 
v.  Sample,  124  So.  49,  98  Fla.  759, 
rehearing-  denied  125  So.  1,  98  Fla. 
769. 

N.J.—Coles  v.  McKenna,  76  A.  344, 
80  N.J.Law  48 — Turk  v.  Leitner, 
194  A.  619,  15  N.J.Misc.  664. 

Right  to  enter  judgment  against 
thos*  defendants  only  who  have 
defaulted  see  infra  5  191. 

90.  Vt.— F.  S.  Fuller  &  Co.  v.  Mor- 
rison, 169  A.  9,  106  Vt  22. 

Trustee  of  codefendant 

Judgment  is  unauthorized  against 
trustee  of  codefendant  against  whom 
Judgment  on  remaining  items  is  un- 
authorized.—F.  S.  Fuller  &  Co.  v. 
Morrison,  supra. 
Subsequent  procedure 

Oodefendant's  motion  to  dismiss 
action  as  against  him  should  be 
granted  and  judgment  entered  in 
his  favor  to  recover  his  costs,  since 
jurisdiction  of  court  over  action  is 
exhausted. — F.  S.  Fuller  &  Co.  v. 
Morrison,  supra. 

91.  N.T. — Bacon    v.    Comstock,     11 
How.Pr.  197,  199. 

83  C.J.  p  1128  note  86  [a],  [dj. 

Right  to  enter  interlocutory  judg- 
ment of  default  where  some  only 
of  defendants  default  see  infra  § 
191. 

92.  H.Y.— Kriser  v.  Bodgers,  18-6  N. 


Y.S.  316,  195  App.Div.  894— Circle 
Cab  Corporation,  v.  Rizzuto,  295  N. 
T.S.  185,  162  Misc.  547— Donner  v. 
White,  268  N.Y.S.  56,  149  Misc.  709. 
Bight  of  final  judgment  In  each  of 
separate  actions  after  severance 
see  Actions  S  122. 

93.  Ind. — Indianapolis     Traction     & 
Terminal  Co.  v.  Holtsclaw,   81  N. 
E.  1084,  40  Ind.App.  -311. 

Md. — Union   Trust   Co.   of  Maryland 

v.  Poor  &  Alexander,  Inc.,  177  A. 

923,  168  Md.  400. 
Pa. — MacHolme  y.  Cochenour,  167  A. 

647,  109  Pa.Super.  563. 
Tenn. — Ponegan   y.    Beasley,    181    S. 

W.2d   379,   27  Tenn.App.   369. 
Vt. — F.  S.  Fuller  &  Co.  v.  Morrison, 

169  A.  9,  106  Vt  22— Metropolitan 

Washing   Machine    Co.    v.    Morris, 

39  Vt  393. 
33  C.J.  p  1124  note  98. 

94.  Mass. — New  York  Trust   Co.   v. 
Brewster,  134  N.E.   616,  241  Mass. 
155. 

33  C.J.  p  1124  note  99. 

96.  Vt. — F.  S.  Fuller  &  Co.  y.  Mor- 
rison, 169  A.  9,  106  Vt.  22— Mc- 
Kane  y.  Gordon  &  Hoar,  81  A.  637, 
85  Vt.  253— Powers  v.  Thayer,  30 
Vt.  361. 
Election  shown 

Verdict  for  specified  total  sum  and 
apportioning  specific  amount  against 
each  of  several  defendants  does  not 
authorize  separate  judgment  against 
each  defendant,  and  plaintiff  by 
marking  satisfied  the  verdict  as  to  a 
defendant  who  paid  the  amount  as-. 

91 


sessed  against  her  elected  to  have 
judgment  entered  against  such  de- 
fendant and  hence  judgments  as  to 
the  others  could  not  stand. — Mac- 
Holme  y.  Cochenour,  167  A.  647,  109 
Pa.  Super.  563. 

96.  Mass. — Brooks  y.  Davis,   1  NJB3. 
2d  17,  294  Mass.  236. 

97.  HI.— Kulesza  y.  Alliance  Print- 
ers  &   Publishers,    47   N.E.2d    547, 
318    IlLApp.    2-31 — Shaw   v.    Court- 
ney,   46    N.E.2d    170,     317    Ill.App. 
422,    affirmed    53    N.E.2d    432,    385 
111.  559. 

Miss. — Aven  v.  Singleton,  96  So.  165, 

132  Miss.  256. 

Dismissal,       discontinuance,       nolle 
proseaui,  or  nonsuit  as  to  some  of 
several  codefendants  see  Dismiss- 
al and  Nonsuit  §§  30-32,  52,  77  a. 
Actions  in  which  statute  applicable 
Statute  authorizing  more  than  one 
judgment     in     action     on     contract 
against  several   defendants   is  Inap- 
plicable   to    action    against    several 
defendants  based  on  theory  of  tort 
liability. — Springer   Transfer   Co. .  y. 
Board  of  Com'rs  of  Bernalillo  Coun- 
ty,  94   P.2d   977,   43  N.M.   444. 
On  New  trial 

Separate  judgments  may  be  enter- 
ed against  several  defendants  on 
new  trial  after  judgment  entered 
against  them  as  a  unit  has  been  set 
aside.— Fredrich  v.  Wolf,  50  N.B.2d 
755,  -383  I1L  638. 

98.  Ariz. — Bracker    Stores    v.    Wil- 
son, 103  F.2d  253,  55  Ariz.  403. 


§  36 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


erally."  Also,  where  the  statutes  provide  therefor, 
the  court,  in  its  discretion,  may  render  judgment 
against  one  or  more  of  several  defendants,  leaving 
the  action  to  proceed  against  the  others,  whenever 
a  several  judgment  may  be  proper.1  A  statute  au- 
thorizing judgment  against  fewer  than  all  of  sev- 
eral defendants  sued  does  not  authorize  the  entry 
of  separate  and  distinct  judgments  against  the  vari- 
ous defendants.2 

Under  statutes  authorizing  separate  judgments, 
where  it  appears,  either  from  the  proceedings  or 
during  the  progress  of  the  case,  that  a  several  judg- 
ment is  proper  as  to  one  or  more  defendants,  the 
court  may  render  a  judgment  for  or  against  him 
or  them,  in  advance  of  the  final  trial,  leaving  the 
action  to  proceed  against  the  other  defendants,8 
including  defendants  who  were  not  served  with 
process  at  that  time,4  and  defendants  as  to  whom 
an  appeal  against  an  improper  dismissal  is  pend- 
ing.5 If  no  sufficient  case  is  stated  against  one  of 
several  defendants,  a  final  judgment  may  be  en- 
tered disposing  of  the  case  as  to  him;6  or  separate 
judgments  may  be  entered  at  the  conclusion  of  the 


trial  against  defendants  who  could  have  been  sued 
severally.7  If  the  action  is  such  that  a  several 
judgment  would  be  proper,  as  where  it  is  brought 
to  enforce  liability  for  tort,8  or  on  a  contract  which 
is  both  joint  and  several,**  judgment  may  be  ren- 
dered against  any  one  or  more  of  defendants  sued, 
without  affecting  or  barring  the  remedy,  at  what- 
ever stage  of  the  case  their  several  liability  is  made 
to  appear,  as  where  such  party  suffers  a  default,  as 
discussed  infra  §  191,  or  submits  to  judgment  by  an 
offer,  infra  §  184,  or  consent,  infra  §  178,  or  con- 
fesses judgment,  infra  §§  144,  164,  or  where  plain- 
tiff is  entitled  to  such  judgment  on  the  allegations 
and  admissions  in  the  pleadings,  as  discussed  in  the 
CJ.S.  title  Pleading  §  433,  also  49  CJ.  p  676  notes 
89,  90.  Also,  under  various  statutes,  it  has  been 
held  proper  to  render  separate  judgments  against 
each  defendant  where  each  is  liable  for  only  a  pro- 
portionate amount  of  the  total  recovery,10  or  where 
the  liability  of  each,  as  expressed  in  the  contract 
sued  on,  is  several  and  differs  in  extent  propor- 
tionate to  the  respective  and  different  interests  of 
each,11  or  where  independent  acts  of  tort-feasors 


99.    Ind.— Hassler  v.   Hefele,   50   N. 
E.  361.  151  Ind.  391. 

1.  Cal. — Trans-Pacific    Trading    Co. 
v.  Patsy  Frock  &  Romper  Co.,  209 
P.  357,  189  Cal.  509— Weisz  v.  Mc- 
Kee,    87    P.2d    379,    31    Cal.App.2d 
144,  rehearing  denied  88  P.2d  200, 
31      Cal.App.2d     144 — Huntoon     v. 
Southern  Trust  &  Commerce  Bank, 
290   P.   86,    107   CaLApp.   121. 

N.J. — Ordinary  of   State   v.  Bastian, 

5   A.2d   463,   17   N.J.Misc.   105. 
Okl. — Howell  v.  Hart,    69  'P.2d  1043, 
180  Okl.  397— Corpus  Juris  cited  in 
Corley  v.  French,  293  P.  177,  178, 
146  Okl.  29. 
Or. — Fischer   v.    Bayer,    210   P.   452, 

108  Or.  311. 
33  C.J.  p  1129  note  4-3. 
In  Iroulsiana 

Where  two  parties  are  sued,  one 
for  the  payment  of  a  note  as  maker, 
and  the  other  for  illegally  retaining 
it,  the  causes  of  action  being  dis- 
tinct, judgment  may  well  be  had 
against  one  and  the  case  continued 
as  to  the  other. — Regillo  v.  Lorente, 
7  La.  140. 

2.  Pa. — MacHolme     v.      Cochenour, 
167  A.  647,  109  Pa.Super.  563. 

Vt. — Metropolitan   Washing  Machine 
Co.  v.  Morris,  39  Vt  393. 

3.  Cal. — Trans-Pacific    Trading    Co. 
v.  Patsy  Frock  &  Romper  Co.,  209 
OP.    357,    189   Cal.    609 — Huntoon   v. 
Southern  Trust  &  Commerce  Bank, 
290  P.  86,  107  CaLApp.  121— Park- 
er v.  Hardistfr,  202  P.  479,  54  Cal. 
App.  628. 

Ga.— Bank  of  Madison  v.   Bell,   118 
S.E.  439,  30  GteuApp.  458. 


Minn. — Bank  of  Commerce  v.  Smith, 

59  N.W.  311,  57  Minn.  374. 
N.J. — Ordinary   of  State  v.   Bastian, 

5  A.2d  463,  17  J^.J.Misc.  105. 
Okl. — Howell  v.  Hart,  -69  P.2d  1043, 

180  Okl.  397. 
33  C.J.  p  1129  note  44. 
Subsequent    judgment    under    cross 

petition 
Ky. — Culton  v.  Couch,  20  S.W.2d  451, 

230  Ky.  586. 

Specific    order   for    continuance    un- 
necessary 

The  court  need  not  specifically  re- 
serve its  Jurisdiction  as  to  other  de- 
fendants as  to  whom  judgment  is 
not  rendered,  but  such  Jurisdiction 
continues  automatically. — Howell  v. 
Hart,  69  P.2d  1045,  180  Okl.  397. 

Action  on  contractor's  bond 

Under  Heard  Act  which  contem- 
plates presentation  of  all  claims  un- 
der a  contractor's  bond  in  a  single 
action,  which  is  to  proceed  as  a  sin- 
gle case,  separate  final  judgments 
may  be  entered  on  the  claims  of 
the  different  claimants  where  so  to 
enter  them  cannot  prejudice  the  oth- 
er claimants  or  the  surety,  as  where 
the  total  of  all  the  claims  does 
not  exceed  the  penalty  of  the  bond. 
— Royal  Indemnity  Co.  v.  Woodbury 
Granite  Co.,  101  F.2d  689,  69  App.D. 
C.  364,  certiorari  dismissed  60  S.Ct. 
63,  308  U.S.  628,  84  L.Bd.  524. 

4.    Cal. — Corbin   v.   Howard,   215   P. 

920,  61  CaLApp.  715. 
Minn.— First  Nat.  Bank  of  Wabasha 

v.     Burkhardt,     73    N.W.     858,    71 

Minn.  185. 


Okl.— Howell  v.  Hart,  69  P.2d  1043, 
180  Okl.  397. 

5.  Ark. — Berryman  v.  Cudahy  Pack- 
ing   Co.,    87    S.W.2d    21,    191    Ark. 
533. 

Statute  held  inapplicable 

Statute  providing  that,  in  actions 
other  than  on  contract  wherein  sum- 
mons has  been  served  on  some  only 
of  defendants,  plaintiff  may  demand 
a  trial  as  to  only  some  of  defend- 
ants on  discontinuing  action  as  to 
others  does  not  apply  to  prevent 
judgment  against  defendant  after 
reversal  on  appeal  of  erroneous  or- 
der quashing  service  of  process  as 
to  him,  where  judgment  was  taken 
against  his  codefendant  pending  the 
appeal. — Berryman  v.  Cudahy  Pack- 
ing Co.,  supra. 

6.  Cal.— Weisz    v.    McKee,    87    P.2d 
379,  rehearing  denied  88  P.2d  200, 
31     Cal.App.2d     144— Huntoon     v. 
Southern  Trust  &  Commerce  Bank, 
290  P.  86,  107  CaLApp.  121. 

7.  S.D. — Western      Twine      Co.      v. 
Wright,  78  N.W.   94$,  11  S.D.  521, 

.44  L.R.A.  438. 

8.  Cal. — McNeely    v.     Los    Angeles 
County  Super.  Ct,   173   P.   102,   36 
Cal.App.  602. 

9.  N.J. — Ordinary  of  State  v.   Bas- 
tian,  5  A.2d  46-3,  17  N.J.Misc.  105. 

33  C.J.  p  1129  note  47. 

10.  Ark.— Fidelity  OPheniac  Fire  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Friedman,  174  S.W.  215,  117 
Ark.  71. 

11.  Colo.— Irwiu  v.  Wood,  4  P.  783, 
7  Colo.  477. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


36 


have  combined  to  cause  plaintiffs  injury  and  sep- 
arate verdicts  against  each  for  varying  amounts 
have  been  returned.12 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  cause  of  action  sued 
on  is  such  that  the  judgment  must  be  joint  and 
under  the  circumstances  the  case  is  not  a  proper 
one  to  go  to  judgment  against  one  of  the  defend- 
ants liable,  the  court  cannot  properly  render  judg- 
ment against  any  of  those  defendants  whose  lia- 
bility has  been  made  to  appear,1^  although  the  en- 
try of  judgment  as  to  some  of  the  defendants  prior 
to  final  trial  is  not  error  of  which  the  other  de- 
fendants may  complain,  where  it  does  not  prejudice 
any  defense,  set-off,  or  counterclaim  of  theirs.14  It 
has  also  been  held  that  separate  judgments  are  per- 
missible only  where  the  substantive  law  controlling 
the  case  is  such  as  to  impose  several  separable  and 
different  respective  liabilities  on  defendants.15 

The  entry  of  a  separate  judgment  against  one  or 
more  defendants,  under  a  statute  authorizing  it, 
does  not  merge  the  cause  of  action,  as  at  common 
law,  and  prevent  the  further  pursuit  of  judgment 
against  the  other  defendants.16  It  is  not  binding 
on  the  other  defendants  ;17  but  it  operates  as  a  sev- 
erance of  the  cause  of  action,  and  after  such  judg- 


ment the  issues  made  by  the  remaining  defendants 
are  to  be  heard  and  determined  as  if  they  had  been 
sued  alone.18  On  such  final  trial,  a  judgment  may 
be  rendered  against  the  remaining  defendant  for  the 
whole  or  such  part  of  the  cause  of  action  as  may 
be  proved  against  him.19  It  is  no  objection  that 
the  various  judgments  are  for  different  amounts.20 
Separate  judgments  against  different  defendants 
have  been  converted  into  one  judgment  against  all 
the  defendants  in  solido  in  order  to  fix  the  obliga- 
tion inter  se.21 

On  new  trial  as  to  some  of  codefendants.  In  ju- 
risdictions where  separate  judgments  against  code- 
fendants are  authorized,  separate  judgments  may 
be  recovered  where  some  of  the  defendants,  after  a 
joint  judgment  against  them,  obtain  a  new  trial;22 
but,  in  jurisdictions  where  only  one  final  judgment 
may  be  entered  in  an  action,  it  has  been  held  that, 
where  a  new  or  further  trial  is  found  necessary  as 
to  one  defendant  and  the  case  has  been  correctly 
tried  as  to  another,  the  case  will  be  held  in  abey- 
ance as  to  the  latter  until  after  the  new  trial  and 
then  one  final  judgment  entered,23  or  it  will  be  re- 
tried as  to  such  defendant  on  the  issue  of  amount 
of  liability  only.24 


12.  111.— Martin  v.  Blackburn,  38  N.  ] 
B.2d  939,  312  IlLApp.  549. 

13.  Mich. — Rimmele  v.  Huebner,  157 
N.W.  10,  190  Mich.  247. 

33  C.J.  p  1129  note  45. 

In  action  on  contract  which  is 
joint  only,  and  not  joint  and  several, 
a  several  judgment  against  some  of 
defendants  cannot  be  rendered  be- 
fore final  trial,  as  it  cannot  be  de- 
termined until  such  trial  whether 
or  not  a  several  judgment  is  proper. 
— Hempy  v.  Hansom,  33  Ohio  St. 
312— Aucker  v.  Adams,  23  Ohio  St. 
543. 

14.  Ohio. — Hempy    v.    Ransom,    83 
.      Ohio  St.  -312. 

33  C.J.  p  1128  note  38. 

15.  Miss.— Gillespie  v.  Olive  Branch 
Building  &  Lumber  Co.,  164  So.  42, 
174  Miss.  154. 

16.  N.J. — Ordinary  of  State  v.  Bas- 
tian,  5  A.2d  463,  17  N.J.Misc.  105. 

33  C.J.  p  1129  note  54. 
Stockholders  statutory  liability 

(1)  In  an  action  against  the  reg- 
istered owner  of  stock  of  an  in- 
solvent bank  to  enforce  the  stock- 
holder's statutory  liability  for  the 
bank's  debts,  judgment  may  be  ob- 
tained against  one  discovered  to  be 
the  real  owner  of  the  stock  after 
judgment  had  been  rendered  against 
the  registered  owner,  where  the 
court  had  reserved  jurisdiction  of 
the  cause. — Reconstruction  Finance 
Corporation  v.  Pelts,  0,<VUU.,  123 


F.2d   503,  certiorari  denied  Pelts  v.  ( 
Reconstruction  Finance  Corporation, 
62   S.Ct   796,   315  U.S.   812,   86  L.Ed. 
1210 — Ericson   v.    Slomer,    C.C.A.I11., 
94  F.2d  437. 

(2)  The  relationship  between  the 
real  owner  and  the  registered  own- 
er of  the  stock  is  that  of  trustee 
and  cestui  due  trust  and  not  that 
of  undisclosed  principal  and  agent. — 
Reconstruction  Finance  Corporation 
v.  Pelts,  C.C.A.I11.,  123  F.2d  503,  ceT- 
tiorari  denied  Pelts  v.  Reconstruc- 
tion Finance  Corporation,  62  S.Ct. 
796,  315  U.S.  812,  86  L.Ed.  1210. 

17.  Kan.— Davis  v.  Deal,  222  P.  68, 
115  Kan.  12. 

18.  Ohio.— Hempy    v.     Ransom,    33 
Ohio  St.  3JL2. 

Character  of  proof  required 

Plaintiff  must  establish  the  alle- 
gations of  his  petition  by  proof  of 
the  same  character  and  of  the  same 
degree  as  though  each  of  defendants 
were  defending. — Davis  v.  Deal,  222 
P.  68,  115  Kan.  12. 

19.  Iowa. — Smith  v.  Coopers,  9  Iowa 
376. 

Ohio. — Hempy    v.    Ransom,    33    Ohio 
St  312. 

20.  Cal.— Cole   v.    Roebling    Constr. 
Co.,    105   P.   255,   156   CaL   443. 

21.  La.— Rosenberg   v.    Derbes,    109 
•So,  841,  161  La.  1070. 

22.  Cal.— Knight  v.   Gosselin,  12   P. 
2d  454,  124  CaLApp.  #90. 

33  C.J.  p  1126  note  19. 

93 


No  double  obligation 

The  second  judgment  does  not 
create  a  double  obligation. — Knight 
v.  Gosselin,  supra. 

23.    Mo. — Electrolytic    Chlorine    Co. 

v.  Wallace  &  Tiernan  Co.,  41  S.W. 

2d    1049,    328    Mo.    782,    78    A.L.R. 

930— Neal    v.    Curtis    &    Co.    Mfg. 

Co.,   Mo.,   41   S.W.2d   543,    328   Mo. 

389. 
Tex. — Alexander    v.    Meredith,     Civ. 

App.,      154    S.W.2d     920,     certified 

questions     dismissed     152    S.W.2d 

732,  137  Tex.  37. 
Right   of  appellate   court   to   affirm 

as    to    some    defendants    and    re- 
verse as  to  others  see  Appeal  and 

Error  §§  1919-1922. 
Retrial  on  reversal  as  to  some  of  de- 
fendants 

Where,  on  appeal,  a  case  is  affirm- 
ed as  to  some  of  defendants  and  re- 
versed and  sent  back  for  retrial  as 
to  others,  the  judgment  on  the  first 
trial,  as  it  was  affirmed,  and  the 
judgment  on  the  retrial  have  been 
held  to  constitute  one  final  judgment 
so  as  not  to  violate  the  statute 
against  more  than  one  final  judg- 
ment in  a  case. 
Mo.— Snuff  v.  Kansas  City,  282  S.W. 

128,  221  Mo.App.  505. 
Tex. — Compton  v.   Jennings   Lumber 

Co.,  Civ.App.,  295  S.W.  308.     - 

24.  Mo. — Barr  v.  Nafzlger  Baking 
Co.,  41  S.W.2d  559,  328  Mo.  423 — 
Polkowski  v.  St,  Louis  Public 


§  36 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


Interested  person  not  a  party  litigant.  The  mere 
fact  that  a  judgment  is  not  res  judicata  to  an  inter- 
ested person  who  is  not  a  party  litigant  does  not 
prevent  the  court  from  rendering  a  judgment  which 
is  final  and  res  judicata  as  to  all  the  parties  to  the 
proceeding.2^ 


§  37. 


Relief  between  Codefendants 


Judgment  determining  the  ultimate  rights  of  de- 
fendants as  between  themselves  Is  authorized  under  va- 
rious codes  and  practice  acts,  but  such  a  judgment  is  not 
authorized  at  common  law. 

At  common  law,  and  in  the  absence  of  statute 
changing  the  rule,  one  defendant  to  a  suit  cannot 
recover  a  judgment  against  a  codefendant,  because 
the  issue  is  as  to  the  liability  of  defendants,  or  ei- 
ther of  them,  to  plaintiff,  and  not  as  to  the  liability 
of  defendants  as  between  themselves;26  if  one  de- 
fendant is  entitled  to  contribution,  indemnity,  or 
other  relief  against  his  codefendant,  it  must  be 
obtained  in  an  independent  action.2?  As  between 
codefendants,  nothing  is  adjudicated  by  a  joint 
judgment  against  them,  as  considered  infra  §  440, 
although  in  equity  a  decree  between  codefendants 
may  be  rendered  in  proper  cases,  as  considered  in 
Equity  §  603. 

Under  codes  and  practice  acts,  affirmative  relief 
may  be  granted  as  between  defendants  in  relation 
to  the  subject  matter  of  the  action,28  on  proper 
pleadings  and  procedure  in  accordance  with  the 


statute,29  it  being  usually  provided  that  a  judgment 
may  determine  the  ultimate  rights  of  the  parties  on 
the  same  side  as  between  themselves.30  Such  relief 
may  be  granted,  even  though  as  between  the  vari- 
ous litigants  the  issues  are  contractual  as  to  one  and 
tortious  as  to  the  other.31 

Such  a  statute,  however,  does  not  make  codefend- 
ants adversaries.32  It  permits  the  determination  of 
questions  of  primary  and  secondary  liability  between 
joint  tort-feasors,33  but  it  does  not  authorize  judg- 
ment as  to  matters  not  connected  with  the  subject 
of  plaintiffs  action.34  The  judgment  authorized 
is  only  such  as  is  responsive  to  the  issues  in  plain- 
tiffs action  and  incidental  to  defendant's  defense 
therein,36  as  a  defendant  is  not  authorized  to  in- 
ject into  plaintiff's  suit  an  independent  suit,  either 
at  law  or  in  equity,  against  his  codefendant,  not 
necessary  or  germane  to  his  defense  to  plaintiffs 
suit,36  unless  a  statute  authorizes  the  determination 
of  particular  issues.37  Under  some  statutes,  where 
a  defendant  is  impleaded  as  being  ultimately  liable, 
the  judgment  against  such  defendant  should  be  in 
favor  of  the  original  defendant  and  not  in  favor 
of  plaintiff,  whose  judgment  should  be  against  the 
original  defendant.38  Service  of  process,  or  notice 
of  some  sort,  as  by  service  of  a  copy  of  the  answer 
or  cross  complaint  praying  such  relief,  is  essential 
to  the  validity  and  regularity  of  a  judgment  in  fa- 
vor of  one  defendant  against  his  codefendant.39 


Service    Co.,    68    S.W.2d    884,    229 
Mo.App.  24. 

25.  La. — Parish      of     Jefferson     v. 
Texas    Co.,    189    -So.    580,    192    La. 
934,  certiorari  denied  Texas  Co.  v. 
•Parish  of  Jefferson,   «0   S.Ct.   138, 
308  U.S.  601,  84  L.Ed.  503. 

26.  Tex. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Cauble  v.  Cauble,  Cir.App.,  283  S. 
W.  914,  919,  920. 

33  C.J.  p  1131  note  63. 

27.  Tex. — Corpus    Juris    Quoted    In 
Cauble    v.    Cauble,    Civ.App.,    28S 
S.W.  914,  919,  920. 

33  C.J.  p  11-31  note  64. 
Right  to  judgment  for: 
Contribution     between     defendant 
tort-feasors    see   Contribution    § 
13  g. 
Indemnity  see  Indemnity  §  28. 

28.  Mo. — Merz     v.      Tower      Grove 
Sank  &  Trust  Co.,  130  S.W.2d  611, 
344  Mo.  1150. 

N.Y. — Weiner  v.  Mager  &  Throne,  3 
N.Y.S.2d  918,  167  Misc.  338— Cohen 
v.  Dugan  Bros.,  235  N.T.S.  118,  134 
Misc.  155. 

Pa.— -Ford  v.  City  of  Philadelphia,  24 
A.2d  746,  148  Pa.Super.  195. 

Tex.— Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Cauble 


v.   Cauble,  Civ.App.,  283  S.W.  914, 
919,  920. 
33  C.J.  p  1131  note  67. 

29.  Mo.— Scheer  v.  Trust  Co.  of  St. 
Louis,  49  S.W.2d  135,  330  Mo.  149. 

Tex.— Corpus  Juris  guoted  in  Cauble 
v.  Cauble,  Civ.App.,  283  S.W.  914, 
919,  920. 

30.  N.C. — Montgomery  v.  Blades,   9 
S.B.2d  397,  217  N.C.  654. 

Tex. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Cauble 
v.  Cauble,  Civ.App.,  283  S.W.  914, 
919,  920. 

31.  N.Y. — Weiner      v.      Mager      & 
Throne,   3  N.Y,S.2d  918,   167  Misc. 
5'38. 

32.  Mo.— Merz  v.  Tower  Grove  Bank 
&  Trust  Co.,   130   S.W.2d   611,   344 
Mo.  1150. 

33.  N.C. — Montgomery  v.   Blades,    9 
S.E.2d  397,  217  N.C.  654. 


34.    N.C. — Montgomery     v. 
supra. 


Blades, 


35.  Mo. — Merz  v.  Tower  Grove 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  130  S.W.2d  611, 
344  Mo.  1150 — Missouri  Dist  Tel- 
egraph Co.  v.  Southwestern  Bell 
Telephone  Co.,  79  S.W.2d  257,  336 
Mo.  453 — Scheer  v.  Trust  Co.  of 

94 


St  Louis,   49  S.W.2d   135,   330   Mo. 

149. 
Relief  not  authorized 

In  innocent  holder's  suit  on  note, 
makers  could  not  obtain  relief  for 
payments  made  to  payees  and  not 
credited  on  note. — Cohen  v.  Daily, 
Mo.App.,  52  S.W.2d  199. 

36.  Mo. — Merz     v.      Tower      Grove 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  130  S.W.2d  611, 
344  Mo.   1150— Missouri  Dist  Tel- 
egraph Co.   v.    Southwestern   Bell 
Telephone  Co.,  79  S.W.2d  257,  3'36 
Mo.  453. 

Equities  not  affecting'  plaintiff's 
tights  cannot  be  adjudicated. — Cohen 
v.  Daily,  Mo.App.,  52  S.W.2d  199. 

37.  Mo. — Early    v.    Small  wood,    256 
S.W.  1053,  302  Mo.  92. 

38.  N.T. — Otis  Elevator  Co.  v.  Mil- 
ler,  216  N.Y.S.  320,    127  Misc.  421. 

39.  Tex. — Stokes    Bros.     &     Co.    v. 
Kramer,  Civ.App.,  44  S.W.2d  822 — 
Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Cauble  v. 
Cauble,     Civ.App.,     283     S.W.     *14, 
919,  920. 

33  C.J.  p  1152  note  70. 
Process,    notice,    or   appearance    see 
supra  §§  23-26. 


49    C.J.S. 

§  38.     Nominal  Parties 

Ordinarily  Judgment  should  be  fn  the  name  of  a 
nominal  or  formal  party,  but  It  Is  proper  to  show  there- 
in the  real  party  In  Interest. 

In  general  judgment  must  be  entered  in  the  name 
of  plaintiff,  although  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  an- 
other,4^  and,  if  entered  in  favor  of  the  beneficiary 
alone,  it  is  irregular  and  erroneous.41  Where  the 
real  parties  in  interest  will  be  estopped  from  again 
asserting  the  claim  in  suit,  judgment  in  the  name  of 
a  nominal  party  is  not  error.42  However,  under 
statutes  requiring  that  actions  be  .prosecuted  in  the 
name  of  the  real  party  in  interest,  it  has  been  held 
that  judgment  may  not  be  rendered  in  favor  of  a 


JUDGMENTS 


§  40 


plaintiff  who  fails  to  show  any  remedial  interest 
in  himself,  even  though  defendant  has  contested 
the  case  on  the  merits.43  It  has  been  held  that  a 
pro  forma  plaintiff  cannot  recover.44  Judgment 
may  be  rendered  against  a  defendant,  although  he 
is  only  a  nominal  or  formal  party,45  but  the  judg- 
ment properly  should  discriminate  between  the  ac- 
tual defendants  charged  with  liability  and  mere 
nominal  or  unnecessary  defendants  not  under  any 
liability  to  plaintiff.46  In  an  action  against  a  hus- 
band in  which  his  wife,  without  having  been  served 
with  a  summons,  was  made  a  nominal  party  defend- 
ant on  plaintiff's  motion,  a  judgment  against  her  is 
voidable.4? 


D.  PLEADINGS,  ISSUES,  EVIDENCE,  VERDICT,  AND  FINDINGS  TO  SUSTAIN  JUDGMENT 
§  39.     Pleadings 


The  necessity  and  sufficiency  of  pleadings 
port  a  judgment  are  considered  infra  §§ 

Examine  Pocket  Parts  for  later  cases. 

§  40.    Necessity  and  Sufficiency 

a.  Necessity 

b.  Sufficiency 


to  sup- 
40,  41. 


a.  Necessity 

Subject  to   certain   exceptions,    pleadings   have  been 
held  essential  to  the  regularity  of  a  Judgment. 

While  exceptions  may  occur  in  respect  of  judg- 
ments by  confession  or  consent,  under  principles 
discussed  infra  §§  ISO,  151,  174,  as  a  general  rule 
pleadings  are  essential  to  support  the  judgment  of 
a  court  of  record,48  and  are  as  necessary  a  basis  for 
a  valid  judgment  as  is  evidence.4^  In  this  connec- 


40.  HI.— McCormick    v.    Fulton,    19 
111.  570. 

83  C.J.  p  1132  note  72. 

41.  111.— -Hobson  v.  Mc'Cainbridge,  22 
N.B.  823,  1-30  111.  -367. 

42.  Okl. — American    Surety    Co.    of 
New  York  v.  Marsh,   293  P.   1041, 
146  Okl.  261. 

Wash. — Weaver    v.    Heaton,    4    P.2d 
521,  164  Wash.  674. 

43.  Alaska. — In  re  Nagao,  4  Alaska 
678. 

Ky.— Lytle  v.  Lytle,  2  Mete.  127. 

44.  Tex. — Lucas    v.    Dallas   County, 
Civ.App.,    138    S.W.2d   179-r Hill   v. 
Kelsey,    Civ.App.,    89    S.W.2d    1017 
— Avenel  v.  Iskovitz,  Civ.App.,  50 
S.W.2d  895. 

45.  Tex. — Harris    v.    Musgrove,    59 
Tex.  401. 

46.  Ky. — Cincinnati  H.  &  P.  B.  Co. 
v.  Spratt,  2  Duv.  4. 

La.— Morries  v.  Zelter,  4  La.A.,  Or- 
leans, 411. 

47.  .(Pa. — Rawlings  v.  Lewert,  9  Pa, 
Disk   &  Co.    701,   28   Lack.Jur.   15, 
75  Pittsb.Leg.J.  111. 

48.  Ala. — Brue  v.  Vaughn,   2   So.2d 
396,  241  Ala.  322. 

Ky. — Howard  v.  Howard,   94  S.W.2d 

652,  264  Ky.  311. 
l£u — Bank  of  White  Castle  v.  Baker, 

139   So.   648,  174  La.   17. 
Or.— Haberly  v.  J>armers'  Mut  Fire 

Relief   Ass'n,    294   P.    5$4,    13    Or. 

32. 
Tex. — City  of  Fort  Worth  v.  Gause, 


101  S.W.2d  221,  129  Tex.  25— Coh- 
en v.  City  of  Houston,  Civ.App., 
185  S.W.2d  450 — Ston«  v.  Boone, 
Clv.App.,  160  S.W.2d  578,  error  re- 
fused—Knox  v.  Lyarels,  Civ.App., 
155  S.W.2d  435,  error  refused- 
Thomas  v.  Mullins,  Civ.App.,  127 
S.W.2d  559,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  Mullins  v.  Thomas,  150  S. 
W.2d  83,  136  Tex.  215— Vassiliades 
v.  Theophiles,  Civ.App.,  115  S.W. 
2d  1220,  error  dismissed — Texas 
&  N.  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Whisenant,  Civ. 
App.,  105  S.W.2d  706— Harris  v. 
Goodloe,  Civ.App.,  58  S.W.2d  156, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  Goodloe 
&  Meredith  v.  Harris,  94  S.W.2d 
1141,  127  Tex.  -583— Bstes  v.  Hart- 
ford Accident  &  Indemnity  Co., 
Civ.App.,  46  S.W.2d  413,  error  re- 
fused— Matrimonial  Mut  Ass'n  of 
Texas  v.  Rutherford,  Ctv.App.,  41 
S.W.2d  719,  error  dismissed — Cisco 
&  N.  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Ricks,  Civ.App., 
3«3  S.W.2d  878 — Smoot  &  Smoot  v. 
Nelson,  Civ. App.,  11  S.W.2d  578— 
Connellee  v.  Witty,  Civ. App.,  246 
S.W.  715. 

Utah. — Upper  Blue  Bench  Irr.  Dist. 
v.  Continental  Nat  Bank  &  Trust 
Co.,  72  P.2d  1048,  93  Utah  325— 
Stockyards  Nat.  Bank  of  South 
Omaha  v.  Bragg,  245  P.  966,  67 
Utah  60. 

Va.— Porks  v.'  Wiltbank,  14  S.E.2d 
281,  177  Va.  461. 

Wis.— Stellmacher  v.  •Sampson,  219 
N.W.  343,  195  Wis.  635. 

33  OT.  p  1132  note  80.      '-•  " 

95 


"There  is  no  principle  better  set. 
tied  than  that  a  judgment  or  decree 
cannot  he  entered  in  the  absence  of 
pleadings  upon  which  to  found  the 
same." — Rhodes  v.  Sewell,  109  So. 
179,  180,  21  Ala^App.  441. 

Matters  occurring*  pendent*  lite 
are  not  adjudicated  by  the  judgment 
unless  brought  before  the  court  by 
supplemental  pleading. — Grand  Un- 
ion Hotel  v.  Industrial  Accident 
Commission,  226  P.  948,  67  CaLApp. 
123. 

Where  no  pleading's  were  filed  in 
"behalf  of  Interveners,  a  judgment  in 
their  favor  could  not  be  sustained 
on  direct  atta-ck  on  appeal. — Howe  v. 
Keystone  (Pipe  &  Supply  Co.,  274  S. 
W.  563,  115  Tex.  158,  motion  for  re- 
hearing overruled  278  S.W.  177,  115 
Tex.  158. 

49.  Ky. — Consolidation  Coal  Co.  v. 
King,  244  S.W.  303,  196  Ky.  54. 

Tenn. — Poster  v.  Andrews,  189  S.W. 
2d  580. 

Tex. — Street  v.  Cunningham,  Civ. 
App.,  156  S.W.2d  541— Lone  Star 
Gas  Co.  v.  Holifleld,  Civ.App.,  160 
S.W.2d  282— Birdville  Independent 
School  Dist.  v.  Deen,  Civ.App.,  141 
•S.W.2d  680,  affirmed  Deen  v.  Bird- 
ville Independent  School  Dist.,  159 
S.W.2d  111,  138  Tex.  339— Adams 
v.  Impey,  Civ.  App.,  i31  S.W.2d 
288 — Shell  Petroleum  Corporation 
v.  Liberty  Gravel  &  Sand  Co.,  Civ. 
App.,  128  S.W.2d  471— Forman  v. 
Barron,  CivJLpp.,  120  S.W.2d  827. 


§  40 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


tion  it  has  been  said  that  courts  have  no  power  to 
render  judgment  until  their  action  is  called  "into 
exercise  by  pleadings,60  that  the  court  lacks  juris- 
diction of  the  subject  matter  or  controversy  in  the 
absence  of  pleadings,51  and  that  a  judgment  ren- 
dered without  pleadings  in  support  thereof  is  funda- 
mentally erroneous,52  a  nullity,63  and  void64  rather 
than  voidable.65  Where  pleadings  are  lost,  judg- 
ment should  not  be  rendered  until  they  have  been 
restored.66 

A  declaration,  petition,  or  complaint  is  essential  to 
the  regularity  of  a  judgment,57  and  it  has  been  held 
that  such  a  pleading  is  essential  to  the  court's  ju- 


risdiction to  enter  judgment,68  and  that  its  absence 
will  render  the  judgment  void,59  although  objection 
to  the  absence  of  such  a  pleading  may  be  waived.60 
Aside  from  judgments  by  confession,  consent,  or  de- 
fault, as  discussed  infra  §§  150,  151,  174,  199,  a 
plea  or  answer  may  be  essential  to  the  regularity  of 
a  judgment.61  Where  the  initial  pleading  has  been 
filed  in  one  division  of  a  court,  and  the  answer  is 
filed  in  a  different  division,  the  former  has  been 
held  to  lack  jurisdiction  to  enter  judgment.62 

b.  Sufficiency 

The   pleadings   should   be   sufficient   to   support  the 


error  refused — Fidelity  &  Deposit 
Co.  of  Maryland  v.  Citizens  Nat. 
Bank  of  Lubbock,  Civ.App.,  120  -S. 
W.2d  113,  error  dismissed — Shack- 
elford  v,  Neilon,  Civ.App.,   100   S. 
W.2d   1037— Shambaugh  v.  Ander- 
son, Civ.App.,  92  -S.W.2d  530,  error 
dismissed — Traders  &  General  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Lincecum,  Civ.App.,  81  S.W. 
2d  549,  reversed  on  other  grounds 
107  -S.W.2d  585,  130  Tex.  220— Karr 
v.  Cockerham,  Civ.App.,  71  S.W.2d 
905,  error  dismissed — Texas  Co.  v. 
Wright,  Civ.App.,   47   S.W.2d  487 — 
Gause-Ware  Funeral  Home  v.  Mc- 
Ginley,    Civ.App.,    41    S.W.2d    433, 
error    refused— Casualty    Recipro- 
cal   Exchange   v,    Allesandro,    Civ. 
App.,    34   S.W.2d   636— Humble   Oil 
&    Refining    Co.    v.    Southwestern 
Bell    Telephone    Co.,    Civ.App.,    2 
S.W.2d    488— Flagg    v.    Matthews, 
Civ.App.,  287  S.W.  299. 
Va.— Potts      v.      Mathieson      Alkali 
Works,   181  S.E.  521,  165  Va.  196. 
33  C.J.  p  1141  note  54. 
Evidence    as    essential    to    support 
judgment  see  infra  §  44. 
A  judgment  cannot   rest  on  evi- 
dence  alone   unsupported   by   plead- 
ing, unless  there  has  been  a  waiver 
by  opposite  party. — Howard  v.  How- 
ard, 94  S.W.2d  652,  264  Ky.  311. 
Proof   cannot    supply    omissions   in 

allegations 

Ala. — Brue  v.  Vaughn,  2  So.2d  396, 
241  Ala.  322. 

A  Judgment  entered  on  evidence 
without  pleadings  is  as  fatally  de- 
fective as  a  judgment  on  pleadings 
without  supporting  evidence. — Stone 
v.  Boone,  Tex.Civ.App.,  160  'S.W.2d 
578,  error  refused — -Rudolph  v. 
Smith,  Tex.Civ.App..  148  -S.W.2d  225. 

50.  Ala.— Rhodes  v.  Sewell,  109  So. 
179,  21  Ala.App.  441. 

Tex. — Dunlap  v.  Southerlin,  63  Tex. 
38— Fidelity  &  Deposit  Co.  of 
Maryland  v.  Citizens  Nat.  Bank  of 
Lubbock,  Ci<v.App.,  120  S.W.2d  113, 
error  refused— Continental  South- 
land Savings  &  Loan  Ass'n  v.  Pan- 
handle Const.  Co,,  Civ.App.,  77  S. 
W.2d  896,  error  refused — Moore  v. 
Jones,  Civ.App.,  278  S.W.  326 — Con- 


nellee  v.  Witty,  Civ.App.,  246  S.W. 
715. 

51.  Mo. — Owens  v.  McCleary,  App., 
273   S.W.  145. 

XJtah.— Cooke  v.  Cooke,  248  P.  83,  67 

trtah  371. 

'It  is  fundamental  that  a  petition 
or  pleading  of  some  kind  is  the  ju- 
ridical means  of  investing  a  court 
with  Jurisdiction  of  subject-matter 
to  adjudicate  it." — Stockyards  Nat. 
Bank  of  South  Omaha  v.  Bragg,  245 
P.  966,  973,  67  Utah  60. 

52.  Tex.— City    of    Fort    Worth    v. 
Gause,    101    S.W.2d    221,    129    Tex. 
25 — Rudolph    v.    -Smith,    Civ.App., 
148    S.W.2d   225— Williams  v.   Sin- 
clair-Prairie Oil  Co.,  Civ. App.,   135 
S.W.2d  211,  error  dismissed,  judg1- 
ment  -correct — State  v.  Howe,  Civ. 
App.,    91    S.W.2d    487— Penrod    v. 
Von    Wolff,     Civ.App.,     90     S.W.2d 
859 — Jones  v.  Womack-Henning  & 
Rollins,    Civ.App.,    53    S.W.2d    635 
— Short  v.    Stephens,   Civ.App.,   44 
S.W,2d  466. 

63.  Utah.— Cooke  v.  Cooke,  248  P. 
83,  67  Utah  371. 

54.  Ala.— Rhodes  v.  Sewell,  109  So. 
179,  21  Ala.App.  441. 

Colo. — Hough  v.  Lucas,  230  P.  789, 
76  Colo.  94. 

Fla.— Lovett  v.  Lovett,  112  So.  768, 
93  Fla.  611. 

Mont. — Oregon  Mortg.  Co.  v.  Kun- 
neke,  245  P.  539,  76  Mont.  117. 

Tenn. — Lewis  v.  Burrow,  127  S.W.2d 
795,  23  Tex.App.  145. 

Tex. — Jackson  v.  Slaughter,  Civ.App., 
185  S.W.2d  759,  refused  for  want 
of  merit — Ritch  v.  Jarvis,  Civ. 
App.,  64  S.W.2d  831,  error  dis- 
missed— Davis  v.  Sloan  Lumber 
Co.,  Civ.App.,  37  S.W.2d  225— Mills 
v.  Moore,  Civ.App.,  295  S.W.  297 
—Hart  v.  Hunter,  114  S.W.  882, 
52  Tex.Civ.App.  75. 

Va.— 'Potts  v,  Mathieson  Alkali 
Works,  181  S.E.  521,  165  Va.  196. 

W.Va. — Kesterson  v.  "Brown,  119  S. 
B.  677,  94  W.Va,  447— Waldron  v. 
Harvey,  46  S.E.  603,  54  W.Va.  608, 
102  Am.S.R.  959. 

33  C.J..  p  1132  note  83—34  C.J.  p  561 
note  7. 

96 


55.  W.Va. — Kesterson  v.  Brown,  119 
S.E.    677,    94   W.Va.    447— Waldron 
v.   Harvey,   46   S.B.   60-3,  -54   W.Va. 
608,  102  Am,S.R.  959. 

56.  Tex. — Watson   Co.,    Builders,    v. 
Bleeker,  Civ.App.,  285  S.W.  637. 

33  C.J.  p  1133  note  94. 

57.  Tex. — Safety    Casualty    Co.     v. 
McGee,    Civ.App.,    93    S.W.2d    519, 
affirmed  127  S.W.2d  176,   133  Tex. 
233,  121  A.L.R.  126Q— Kentucky  Oil 
Corporation    v.    McCandless,    Civ. 
App.,  300  S.W.  972. 

33  C.J.  p  1132  notes  85,  87. 

58.  Utah.— State  v.  Cragun,  20  P.2d 
247,  81  Utah  457. 

Wis. — Nehring   v.    Niemerowicz,    276 
N.W.  325,  226  Wis.  285. 

59.  Iowa. — Jordan  v.  Brown,  32  N. 
W.  450,  71  Iowa  421. 

33  C.J.  p  1132  note  86. 

60.  Neb.— Heater  v.  Penrod,   89   N. 
W.  762,  2  Neb.Unoff.  711. 

33  C.J.  p  1133  note  89. 

61.  W.Va. — Cline    v.    Star    Coal    & 
Coke  Co.,  153   S.B.  148,  109  W.Va. 
101— Del-Carbo   Coal    &   Coke    Co. 
v.  Cunninghame,    116   S.B.   719,   9*3 
W.Va.  12. 

Vnpleaded  defense 

A  judgment  based  on  an  unplead- 
ed  defense  that  money  sought  to  be 
garnished  was  exempt  because  con- 
stituting proceeds  of  insurance  pol- 
icy on  household  goods  held  void, 
as  being  unsupported  by  pleadings. 
— Sorenson  v.  City  Nat.  Bank,  Tex. 
Civ.App.,  273  S.W.  638. 
Declinatory  exceptions 

Where  citations  to  a  defendant  are 
served  on  the  secretary  of  state,  and 
defendant  challenges  the  validity  of 
the  service  and  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  court  through  declinatory  excep- 
tions, but  at  no  time  files  an  answer 
or  suffers  judgment  to  be  taken  by 
default,  judgment  against  defendant 
on  the  merits  has  been 'held  void. — 
Rector  v.  Allied  Van  Lines,  L/a.App., 
198  So.  £16. 

62.  Mo. — Owens  v.  McCleary, 
273  S.W.  145. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


40 


Judgment,  and  a  judgment  rendered  on  a  complaint  fail- 
ing to  state  a  cause  of  action  has  been  held  erroneous. 

As  a  general  rule,  pleadings  must  be  sufficient 
to  support  the  judgment;63  they  should  be  of  such 
a  character  that  a  final  judgment  will  be  sustained 
by  findings  thereon.64  While  mere  generality  of 
the  allegations  is  not  of  itself  fatal  to  the  validity 
of  a  judgment,65  a  judgment  cannot  be  sustained 
by  allegations  which  are  only  conclusions  of  law 
rather  than  averments  of  fact.66  Pleadings  have 
been  held  substantially  defective  where  oral,67  and 


facts  presented  by  an  unauthorized  pleading  do  not 
afford  a  proper  predicate  for  judgment.68 

In  determining  the  sufficiency  of  the  pleadings  to 
support  the  judgment  it  has  been  said  that  the- court 
will  consider  the  pleadings  of  both  parties,69  and 
that  facts  pleaded  by  the  adverse  party  are  available 
to  either  party  in  support  of  the  judgment70  In 
testing  the  sufficiency  of  the  complaint  as  a  basis 
on  which  to  rest  the  judgment,  averments  unsup- 
ported by  the  proof  should  be  eliminated.71  A  judg- 
ment must  be  based  on  material  allegations  in  the 


63.  Ariz.— Wallace  r.  Chappelle,  39 
P.2d  935.  45  Ariz.  $5. 

CaL — »Kreling  v.  Superior  Court  of 
Los  Angeles  County,  118  P.2d  470, 
18  Cal.2d  884 — Stesel  v.  Santa  Ana 
River  Water  Co.,  94  P.2d  1052,  85 
Cal.App.2d  117. 

Ky. — Mclntosh  v.  Clark,  Thurmund 
&  Richardson,  177  S.W.2d  155,  296 
Ky.  858— Bank  of  Tollesboro  v. 
W.  T.  Rawleigh  Co.,  291  S.W.  1089, 
218  Ky.  516— National  Surety  Co. 
v.  Daviess  County  'Planing  Mill 
Co.,  281  S.W.  791,  213  Ky.  670— 
Elkhorn  Coal  Corporation  v.  Case, 
278  S.W.  570,  212  Ky.  146— Frick 
Co.  v.  Salyers,  258  S.W.  3-10,  201 
Ky.  763— Consolidation  Coal  Ca.  v. 
King,  244  S.W.  303,  19*  Ky.  54. 

Neb. — Domann  v.  Domann,  208  N.W. 
669,  114  Neb.  563. 

Okl.— Central  Nat  Oil  Co.  v.  Conti- 
nental Supply  Co.,  249  P.  347,  119 
Okl.  190. 

Or.— U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaranty  O. 
v.  Zidell-Steinberg  Co.,  HO  P.2d 
584,  151  Or.  5*38,  modified  on  other 
grounds  51  P.2d  687,  151  Or.  588. 

Tenn. — Hunt  v.  National  Linen  Serv- 
ice Corporation,  157  S.W.2d  608, 
178  Tenn.  262.- 

Tex. — John  B.  Quarles  Co.  v.  Lee, 
Com.App.,  58  &W.2d  77,  costs  re- 
taxed  67  &W.2d  607— Cohen  v. 
City  of  Houston,  Civ.App.,  185  S. 
W.2d  450— Wi'ehlta  Falls  &  S.  R. 
Co.  v.  Hesson,  Civ.App.,  151  S.W.2d 
270,  error  dismissed,  judgment 
correct — Pine  v.  Pratt,  Civ.App., 
150  S.W.2d  80!8— Ray  v.  Fowler, 
Civ.A.pp.,  144  S.W.2d  665,  error  dis- 
missed, judgment  correct — Lone 
Star  Finance  Corporation  v.  Schel- 
ling,  Civ.App.,  80  S.W.2d  368— San- 
er-Ragley  Lumber  Co.  v.  Sp*vey, 
CiY.App.,  255  S.W.  193,  modified 
on  other  grounds  Spivey  v.  Saner- 
Ragley  Dumber  Co.,  Com.App.,  284 
S.W.  210. 

Pleadings  impliedly  wiffloieut 

The  entry  of  a  judgment  implies 
that  the  pleadings  were  sufficient  to 
sustain  the  Judgment — Wistrom 
Forsling,  14  N.W.2d  217,  144  Neb. 
638. 

Description  of  property 

In   so    far  as   the  description   of 
property  in  the  pleadings  is  insuf- 

49  C.J.S.-7 


flcient  to   describe  any  property,   a 
Judgment  based  thereon  is  invalid. 
Col. — Birkhauser  v.  Ross,  283  P.  866, 

102  CaLApp.  582. 
Mo. — Barrie    v.    Ranson,    46    S.W.2d 

186,  226  Mo.App.  554. 

Contradictory  allegations 

A  pleading  alleging  that  acts  for 
results  of  which  the  recovery  of 
damages  was  sought  were  malicious 
and  grossly  negligent,  and  pleading 
alleging  that  acts  were  malicious, 
wrongful,  willful,  and  wanton,  were 
insufficient  to  authorize  judgment 
based  on  negligence,  or  willful  mis- 
conduct because  pleadings  were  con- 
tradictory.— Michels  v.  Boruta,  Tex. 
C*v.App.,  122  S.W.2d  216. 

Pleading*  held  sufficient 
(1)  Generally. 

U.S.— State  Bank  of  New  York  v. 
Henderson  County,  Ky.,  C.C.A.Ky., 
•35  F.2d  859,  certiorari  denied  Hen- 
derson County,  State  of  Kentucky, 
v.  State  Bank  of  New  York,  50 
S.Ct  245,  281  U.S.  728,  74  L.Bd. 
1144,  1145. 

HI. — Oberman  v.  Camden  Fire  Ins. 
Ass'n,  145  N.E.  351,  314  111.  264 
— Christenson  v.  Board  of  Chari- 
ties of  Illinois  Conference  of  Ev. 
Lutheran  Augustana  Synod,  253 
Ill.App.  $80. 

Ky.— Small  v.  Minton,  192  S.W.2d 
184— Carter  v.  Templeman,  182  S. 
W.2d  241,  298  Ky.  272— United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  Local 
Union  6659,  v.  Jones,  162  S.W.2d  17, 
290  Ky.  569— Guinn  v.  Cross,  147 
S.W.2d  375,  285  Ky.  571— Feltner 
v.  Smith,  143  S.W.2d  505,  283  Ky. 
783— Carter  v.  Harlatji  Hospital, 
128  S.W.2d  174,  278  Ky.  84— Rob- 
bins  v.  Hopkins,  65  S.W.2d  54,  251 
Ky.  413— McKinney  v.  Knapp,  258 
S.W.  '314,  201  Ky.  768. 

Mo.— Women's  Christian  Ass'n  of 
Kansas  City  v.  Brown,  190  S.W.2d 
900 — Jones  v.  Campbell,  App.,  189 
S.W.2d  124. 

Neb.— Hardt  v.  Orr,  6  N.W.2d  589, 
142  Neb.  460-JProkop  v.  Mlady, 
287  N.W.  55,  186  Neb.  644. 

Tex. — Joyce  v.  Anderson-Bledsoe 
Stave  Co.,  Civ. App.,  173  S.W.2d 
315-^Sparrow  v.  Tinman,  Civ.App., 
283  S.W.  877— Gulf,  C.  &  &  F.  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Kempner,  Civ.App.,  275  S. 

97 


W.  459,  reversed  on  other  grounds, 
Com.App.,  282  S.W.  795. 

(2)  Allegations  as  to  negligence. 
I1L — Belcher  v.   Citizens   Coach  Co., 

App.,  64  N.B.2d  747. 
Ky.— Hurley    v.    Greif,    115    S.W.2d 
284,  272  Ky.  741. 

(3)  Averments  as  to  contributory 
negligence. — Posey      v.      Board      of 
Councilmen    of    City    of    Frankfort, 
184    S.W.2d    970,    299    Ky.    210— Na- 
pier  v.   Hurst-Snyder  Hospital  Co., 
130  S.W.2d  771,  279  Ky.  378. 

(4)  Description  of  property. 

Ga. — Cason  v.  United  Realty  &  Auc- 
tion Co.,  151  S.B.  161,  161  Ga.  374. 

Ky.— Sapp  v.  Likens,  192  S.W.2d  394 
— Souleyette  v.  McKee,  178  S.W.2d 
833,  296  Ky.  868. 

64.  Nev. — Edmonds  v.  Perry,  140  P. 
2d  566. 

65.  Conn. — Corden  v.  Zoning  Bd.  of 
Appeals  of  City  of  Waterbury,  41 
A.2d  912,  131  Conn.  654. 

Ky. — S.  K.  Jones  Const  Co.  v.  Hend- 
ley,  5  S.W.2d  482,  224  Ky.  83. 

66.  Ky.— -Murphy   v.    Blackburn,    16 
S.W.2d    771,    229    Ky.    109— S.    K. 
Jones    Const    Co.    v.    Hendley,    5 
S.W.2d  482,  224  Ky.  83. 

Tex.— Wichita  Falls  &  Southern  R. 
Co.  v.  Anderson,  Civ.App.,  144  S. 
W.2d  441,  error  dismissed,  Judg- 
ment correct 

67.  Tex.— Holloway  v.   Miller,  Civ. 
App.,  272  S.W.  562. 

68.  Ky.— Wells  v.  West,  15   S.W.2d' 
531,  228  Ky.  737. 

Substitute  pleading  filed  without 
proper  procedure,  as  where  the  orig- 
inal petition  was  lost  and  a  substi- 
tute was  filed  without  notice  to  de- 
fendant and  hearing  as  required  by 
statute,  afforded  insufficient  basis 
for  judgment  and  a  judgment  based 
thereon  was  illegal. — Whorton  v. 
Nevitt,  Tex.Civ.App.,  42  S.W.2d  1056. 

69.  Tex.— HaU  v.  Collins,  Clv.App., 
167  S.W.2d  210,  affirmed  Collins  v. 
Hall,  174  S.W.2d  50,  141  Tex.  433. 

70.  Tex.— Bagby  v.  Bagby,  Civ.App., 
186  S.W.2d  702. 

71.  Cal.— White    v.    Covell,    227    P. 
196,  66  CaLApp.  732. 


40 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


pleadings.72  Under  some  practice  a  judgment  may 
not  be  entered  on  a  cause  of  action  asserted  by  re- 
ply,73 Error  in  asserting  the  amount  due  in  a 
counterclaim  and  cross  action  should  be  corrected 
by  amendment  thereof  rather  than  by  asserting  the 
correct  amount  in  reply,  and  a  judgment  based  on 
the  reply  stating  the  correct  amount  cannot  stand.74 

Defects  in  form;  irregularities.  A  pleading 
which  is  merely  deficient  in  form  has  been  held  not 
to  render  the  judgment  void,75  but  only  voidable.76 
Thus  mere  defects  and  irregularities  in  the  plead- 
ings will  not  invalidate  the  judgment,77  at  least 
where  no  timely  objection  thereto  has  been  raised,78 
and,  even  though  a  petition  does  not  perfectly  state 
a  cause  of  action,  a  valid  judgment  may  be  entered 
thereon.™  A  petition  cannot  be  said  to  be  so  de- 
fective that  no  legal  judgment  may  be  entered  there- 
on where  the  defect  is  amendable,80  but  a  judgment 
has  been  held  void  where  the  petition  was  not 
amendable.81  A  judgment  may  be  sustained  de- 


spite defects  in  the  pleadings  on  which  it  is  based 
where  the  case  falls  within  the  purview  of  statu- 
tory provisions  designed  to  protect  judgments,  such 
as  statutes  requiring  a  liberal  construction  of  plead- 
ings,82 or  statutes  of  jeofails.83 

Sufficiency  of  pleadings  as  basis  of  judgment  for 
defendant.  If  a  petition  or  similar  pleading  is  in- 
sufficient as  a  basis  for  judgment  in  favor  of  plain- 
tiff, it  is  also  insufficient  to  serve  as  the  basis  for 
a  judgment  for  defendant.84  Where  plaintiff  fails 
to  amend,  the  proper  judgment  to  enter  is  one  sim- 
ply of  dismissal,85  and  the  fact  that  the  pleading 
fails  to  state  a  cause  of  action  will  not  prevent  ren- 
dition of  a  judgment  of  dismissal.86  When  issues 
are  framed  on  a  plea  in  abatement  and  those  issues 
are  found  for  defendant,  resulting  in  a  judgment 
for  him,  such  judgment  has  been  held  not  void  even 
though  a  demurrer  to  the  complaint  was  sustained, 
since  in  such  a  case  the  judgment  is  not  dependent 
on  a  complaint  to  give  it  effect,  but  is  dependent 


72.  HI.— National  Can  Co.  v.  Weir- 
ton    Steel   Co.,    145    N.E.    389,    314 
111.  280. 

73.  Ky. — Conley  v.  Coburn,  179  S.W. 
2d    668f    297    Ky    292— Connecticut 
Fire    Ins.    of   Hartford,    Conn.,   v. 
Baker,    153    S.W.2d    9.38,    287    Ky. 
395. 

Mont. — Armstrong-  v.  Butte,  A.  &  P. 
R.  Co.,  99  P.2d  223,  110  Mont  133 
— Stillwater  County  v.  Kenyon, 
297  P.  453,  89  Mont  354. 

74L  Ky. — Rogers  v.  Boiling,  1  S.W. 
2d  989,  222  Ky.  561. 

75.  Ala. — Agee  v.  Agee's  Cash  Store 
No.  2,  10.0  So.  809,  211  Ala.  422. 

Utah. — People's    Bonded    Trustee    v. 

Wight  272  P.  200,   72  Utah  587. 
Jurisdiction  of  court 

Where  the  nature  of  the  suit  in- 
vokes the  actual  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  rendering  the  judgment  and 
the  petition  is  merely  lacking  in 
allegations  as  to  the  fullness  of 
'  facts,  it  presents  a  matter  for  deter- 
mination by  the  trial  judge  and 
any  error  committed  in  rendering 
the  judgment  on  insufficient  facts 
does  not  render  the  judgment  void. 
— Rice  v.  Mercantile  Bank  &  Trust 
Co.  of  Texas,  Tex.Civ.App.,  86  S.W. 
2d  .54. 

76.  Tex. — Jackson  v.  Slaughter,  Civ. 
App.,   185   S.W.2d  759,  refused  for 
want    of    merit — Ritch    v.    Jarvis, 
Civ. App.,  64  S.W.2d  831,  error  dis- 
missed— Hart  v.  Hunter,  114  S.W. 
882,  52  Tex.Civ.App.  75. 

77.  U.S.— The     Amaranth,    C.C.AJNT. 
Y.,  68  F.2d  893. 

Al<au — John  33.  Ballenger  Const.  Co. 
v.  Joe  P.  Walters  Const  Co.,  184 
So.  275,  236  Ala.  548. 


Ariz. — Mosher  v.  Way  land,  158  P.2d 
654,  appeal  dismissed  66  -S.Ct.  58. 

Cal.— Russell  v.  Ramm,  254  P.  532, 
200  Cal.  348— Goatman  v.  Fuller, 
216  P.  35,  19i  Cal.  245— In  re 
Dam's  Estate,  14  P.2d  162,  126 
CaLApp.  70 — Shupe  v.  Evans,  261 
P.  492,  86  CaLApp.  700. 

111. — Fleming  v.  City  of  Chicago,  260 
Ill.App.  496. 

Kan. — Goodman  v.  Cr etcher,  294  P. 
868,  132  Kan.  142. 

Ky.— Lorton  v.  Ashbrook,  295  S.W. 
1027,  220  Ky.  830. 

Mich. — Auditor  General  v.  Oleznic- 
zak,  4  N.W.2d  679,  302  Mich.  336. 

Mo. — Breit  v.  Bowland,  App.,  127  S. 
W.2d  71. 

Okl. — Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Excise  Board  of  Oklahoma  County, 
3'3  P.2d  1081,  168  Okl.  428— Kansas 
City  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Excise 
Board  of  Le  Flore  County,  33  P. 
2d  493,  168  Okl.  408. 

Utah. — Gray's  Harbor  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Burton  Lumber  Co.,  236  P.  1102, 
65  Utah  333,  followed  in  Califor- 
nia Pine  Box  Distributors  v.  Bur- 
ton Lumber  Co.,  236  P.  1106,  65 
Utah  332. 

33  C.J.  p  1134  note  1,  p  1144  note  73. 

ZTanie  of  plaintiff 

Mo. — La   Forge   Undertaking  Co.   v. 

Bader,    App.,    15    S.W.2d   945. 
33  C.J.  p  1134  note  1  [b]. 

Improper  designation  of  court 

While  a  judgment  on  petition 
which  fails  properly  to  designate 
court  in  which  it  is  filed  and  in 
which  judgment  is  asked  is  void, 
nevertheless  an  error  or  mistake  in 
addressing  a  petition  to  the  wrong 
court  can  be  cured  by  supplemental 
or  amended  petition  filed  before  is- 
sue joined  and  giving  the  proper 

98 


name  and  title  of  the  court  and  in 
such  case  the  petition  will  support 
the  Judgment — Kunnes  v.  Kogos, 
123  So.  122,  168  La.  682,  65  A.L.R. 
706. 

78.  Fla. — Harris  v.   Smith,    7   So.2d 
343,  150  Fla.  125. 

N.C.— Hinton  v.  Whitehurst,  4  S.E.2d 

507,  216  N.C.  241. 
Tex.— Kirkpatrick  v.  Neal,  Civ.App., 

153  S.W.2d  519,  error  refused. 

79.  Okl.— Protest    of    St.   Louis-San 
Francisco    Ry.    Co.,    38    P.2d    954, 
170  Okl.  11. 

80.  Ga. — S  towers  v.  Harris, '22  S.E. 
2d  405,  194  Ga.  636. 

Okl.— Wetzel  v.  Evans,  147  P.2d  133, 
194  Okl.  20— Latimer  v.  Haste, 
223  P.  879,  101  Okl.  109. 

Tex. — Sovereign  Camp,  W.  O.  W.  v. 
Piper,  Civ.App.,  222  S.W.  649. 

Utah.— State  v.  Cragun,  20  P.2d  247, 
81  Utah  45,— People's  Bonded 
Trustee  v.  Wight,  272  P.  200,  72 
Utah  587. 

81.  Ga.— Deck  v.  Shields,  25  S.E.M 
514,  195  Ga.  697. 

82.  Or. — Siddons  v.  Lauterman,  109 
P.2d  1049,  165  Or.  668. 

33  <C.J.  p  1134  note  5. 

83.  Mich— Ferton     v.     Feller,     33 
Mich.  199. 

34  C.J.  p  510  note  35. 

84.  Tex.— Stewart    v.    Collatt,    Civ. 
App.,   Ill   S.W.2d  1131— JCollins  v. 
Lowe,  Civ.App.,   5    S.W.2d   872. 

85.  Tex. — Collins  v.  Lowe,  supra. 

86.  Ky.— Wilson  v.  Louisville  &  N. 
R.    Co.,    77    S.W.2d    416,    257    Ky. 
144,     . 


49    C.J.8. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  40 


only  on  the  continued  existence  Of  the  cause  in 
court.87  While  defendant's  pleadings  must  be  suf- 
ficient to  support  the  judgment  rendered,88  they 
may  be  sufficient  although  defective  if  the  defect  is 
amendable.89  It  has  been  held  that  affirmative  re- 
lief cannot  be  granted  a  defendant  on  the  basis  of 
his  answer,  but  that  a  judgment  for  affirmative  re- 
lief must  be  supported  by  a  counterclaim.90 

Defects  in  petition  or  complaint.  As  a  general 
rule,  where  plaintiffs  declaration  or  complaint  is 
defective  in  substance,  to  the  extent  of  failing  to 


make  out  a  cause  of  action,  it  cannot  support  a 
judgment  in  his  favor,  and  such  judgment  will  be 
erroneous  and  reversible91  notwithstanding  no  de- 
murrer was  filed,92  or,  if  filed,  was  overruled,  and 
defendant  has  answered  over.93  It  has  been  held 
that  failure  of  plaintiff's  initial  pleading  to  state  a 
cause  of  action  is  not  a  jurisdictional  defect,94  and 
that,  except  where  the  complaint  shows  that  the 
court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  the  parties  and  the  sub- 
ject matter95  or  fails  to  show  affirmatively  that  the 
court  has  such  jurisdiction,96  a  judgment  rendered 


87.  Ala. — Box  v.   Metropolitan   Life 
Ins.  Co.,  168  So.  216,  232  Ala.  1. 

88.  Fla.— Smith    v,    Pattishall,    173 
So.  355. 

Case  not  terminated 

In  action  on  note,  where  defend- 
ant's   pleas    failed    to    set    out    any 
sufficient  legal  defense,  a  judgment 
rendered  for  defendant  did  not  con- 
stitute  a   legal    termination   of   the 
case. — A.    W.    Muse   Co.    v.    Collins, 
199  S.R  856,  58  Ga.App.  753. 
Flea  or  answer  held  sufficient 
Cal.— Valentine  v.    G.    S.    Donaldson 
Inv.   Co.,    260  (P.  *05,   86    Cal.App. 
142. 
Ohio. — Thacker  v.   Matthews,   43  N. 

E.2d    108,    70   Ohio   App.   314. 
Plea  or  answer  held  insufficient 
Fla. — Merchants  &  Bankers  Guaran- 
ty Co.  v.  Downs,  175  So.  704,  128 
Fla.  767. 

89.  Tex.— Gilbert  v.  T.  B.   Allen  & 
Co.,   Civ.App.,    16   S.W.2d   377,   er- 
ror refused. 

90.  N.J.— Kraft  v.   Fassitt,   30  A.2d 
574,   132   N.J.Ea.  603.  reversed  on 
other  grounds  28  A,2d  537,  132  N. 
J.Eq.  625. 

91.  U.S. — Barnes    v.    Boyd,    D.C.W. 
Va.,    8    F.Supp.    584,  affirmed.   C.C. 
A.,    73   F.2d   910,   certiorari  denied 
55  S.Ct.  550,  294  U.S.  72'3,  79  L.Ed. 
1254,  rehearing  denied  55  S.Ct.  647, 
295  U.S.   768,  79  L.Ed.  1708. 

Ala. — John  E.  Ballenger  Const.  Co. 
v.  Joe  F.  Walters  Const.  Co.,  184 
So.  275,  236  Ala.  548— Rhodes  v. 
Sewell,  109  So.  179,  21  Ala.App. 
441. 

Ark.— Wilson  v.  Overturf,  248  S.W. 
898,  157  Ark.  385. 

Cal. — Kreling  v.  Superior  Court  of 
Los  Angeles  County,  118  P.2d  470, 
18  Cal.2d  884 — Birkhauser  v.  Ross, 
283  P.  866,  102  Cal.App.  582. 

Fla. — McDougald  v.  Couey,  200  So. 
391,  145  Fla.  689— Oorpus  Juris 
cited  in  East  Coast  Stores  v.  Cuth- 
bert,  133  So.  863,  865,  101  Fla.  25 
— Porter  v.  Sprague,  126  So.  759, 
99  Fla.  371. 

Idaho.— Stanger  v.  Hunter,  291  P. 
1060,  49  Idaho  723. 

Ky.— Hardin  Oil  Co.  v.  Spencer,  266 
S.W.  654,  205  Ky.  842. 

Miss. — Smith  v.   Peas,  130   So.   105, 


158  Miss.  Ill— Carrier  Lumber  & 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Quitman  County,  124 
So.  437,  156  Miss.  396,  66  A.L.R. 
614,  suggestion  of  error  overruled 
125  So.  416,  156  Miss.  396,  66  A. 
L.R.  614,  followed  in  Matthews  v. 
Quitman  County.  127  So.  305. 

Mont — Lindsey  v.  Drs.  Keenan,  An- 
drews &  Allred,  165  P.2d  804— 
Montana  Auto  Finance  Corpora- 
tion v.  British  &  Federal  Under- 
writers of  Norwich  Union  Fire 
Ins.  Socy  232  -P.  198,  72  Mont  69, 
36  A.L.R.  1495. 

Neb.— Sallander  v.  Prairie  Life  Ins. 
Co.,  200  N.W.  844,  112  Neb.  629. 

N.M. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  In  re 
Field's  Estate,  60  P.2d  945,  950, 
40  N.M.  423. 

Pa. — Greenberg  v.  Goldman  Stores 
Corporation,  178  A.  528,  117  Pa. 
Super.  559. 

Tex. — Stovall  v.  Finney,  Civ.App., 
152  S.W.2d  887— -Fort  Worth  & 
Denver  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Reid,  Civ. 
App.,  115  S.W.2d  1156— Bell  v. 
Beckum,  Civ.App.,  44  S.W.2d  389— 
Wichita  County  v.  Allred,  Civ. 
App.,  27  S.W.2d  653— Trail  v.  Ma- 
phis  &  Day,  <3iv.App.,  25  S.W.2d 
627 — Texas  Electric  Service  Co.  v. 
Perkins,  CivJLpp.,  11  S.W.2d  643, 
affirmed,  Com. App.,  23  S.W.2d  320, 
followed  in  Texas  Electric  Service 
Co.  v.  Bradford,  Civ.App.,  26  S.W. 
2d  339— West  Texas  Utilities  Co. 
v.  Nunnally,  Civ.App.,  10  S.W.2d 
391— Austin  v.  Fields,  Civ.App., 
300  S.W.  247 — Texas  Employers' 
Ins.  Ass'n  v,  Wright,  Civ. App.,  297 
S.W.  764,  modified  on  other 
grounds,  Com.App.,  4  S.W.2d  31, 
motion  denied  7  S.W.2d  72— Hollo- 
way  v.  Miller,  Civ.App.f  272  S.W. 
562. 

38  C.J.  p  1183  note  95,  p  1144  note 
68. 

Allegation  of  liability 

(1)  A  petition  or  similar  pleading 
which  fails  to  allege  some  liability 
against  a  defendant  does  not  state 
a  cause  of  action  within  the  rule 
requiring  written  pleadings  in  sup- 
port of  a.  judgment  of  a  court  of 
record.— Woodward  v.  Acme  Lumber 
Co.,  Tex.Civ.App.,  103  S.W.2d  1054— • 
Fisk  v.  Warren,  Tex.Civ.App.,  248 
S.W.  406. 

99 


(2)  In  an  action  on  notes  signed 
jointly  by  a  husband  and  wife,  a 
petition  stating  only  that  the  for- 
mer is  the  husband  of  the  latter,  and 
not  that  he  executed  and  delivered 
the  notes,  is  insufficient  to  sustain  a 
judgment  against  him. — Fisk  v. 
Warren,  supra. 
Cause  of  action  in  alternative 

A  pleading  stating  a  cause  of  ac- 
tion against  two  parties  in  the  al- 
ternative is  insufficient  to  sustain  a 
judgment  against  either. — Hartzell 
v.  Bank  of  Murray,  277  S.W.  270,  211 
Ky.  26-8. 
Jurisdiction 

The  sufficiency  of  a  petition  in  a 
court  of  record  is  not  the  test  of 
jurisdiction,  since  the  court  may 
commit  an  error  in  holding  it  suffi- 
cient— In  re  Warner's  Estate,  288  N. 
W.  39,  137  Neb.  25. 

92.  Ala. — St  .Clair  County  v.  Smith, 
20  So.  584,  112  Ala.  347. 

93.  Iowa. — Brown    v.    Cunningham, 
48  N.W.   1042,   82  Iowa  512,  12  L. 
R.A.  583. 

94.  Cal.— In    re   Keel's   Estate,   100 
P.2d  1045,  15  «Cal.2d  328. 

'Okl.— Noel  v.  Edwards,  260  P.  58, 
127  Okl,  163 — Abraham  v.  Homer, 
226  P.  45,  102  Okl.  12. 

95.  Cal. — Moran   v.   -Superior   Court 
in  and  for  Sacramento  County,  96 
P.2d  193,  36  Cal.App.2d  629. 
"The  law  makes  a  distinction  be- 
tween a  complaint  which   does  not 
state  a  cause  of  action  by  reason 
of  defects  in  the  allegations  therein 
contained,  where   the   court  has  ju- 
risdiction  of  the   subject-matter  of 
the  action,  and  cases  where  the  court 
has   no  jurisdiction   of  the   subject- 
matter.    If  it  appears  from  the  com- 
plaint that  the  court  had  no  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  subject-matter,  the  judg- 
ment of  course  is  void,  but  if  the 
court  has  jurisdiction  of  the  subject- 
matter,  its  rulings  upon  demurrer  as 
to   the  sufficiency  of  the   complaint 
constitutes  only  errors  in  procedure 
in   the   trial." — Behrens   v.    Superior 
Court  in  and  for  Tuba  County,  23  P. 
2d   428,    429,    132   Cal.App.    704. 

96.  Tex. — Smith    v.     Pegram,     Civ. 
App.,  80  S.W.2d  354,  error  refused 
— Randals  v.  Green,  Civ.App.,  258 
S.W.  628. 


§41 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


thereon  is  not  void  merely  because  the  complaint 
fails  to  state  a  cause  of  action,9?  as  long  as  it  ap- 
prises defendant  of  the  nature  of  plaintiffs  de- 
mand.98 In  this  connection  it  has  been  said  that 
jurisdiction  of  the  court  to  render  judgment  does 
not  depend  on  the  sufficiency  or  fullness  of  a  cause 
of  action  pleaded,99  and  that,  if  a  cause  is  pleaded 
belonging  to  a  general  class  over  which  the  court's 
authority  extends,  jurisdiction  attaches,  and  the 
court  has  power  to  determine  whether  the  pleading 
is  good  or  bad  and  to  decide  on  its  sufficiency  as  a 
statement  of  a  cause  of  action.*  On  the  other  hand, 
it  has  been  broadly  stated  in  some  decisions  that, 
where  a  complaint  or  similar  pleading  fails  to  state 
facts  constituting  a  cause  of  action,  the  court  lacks 
jurisdiction  to  render  a  judgment  thereon,2  and  that 
a  judgment  rendered  thereon  is  ordinarily  void,3 
at  least  where  it  rests  solely  on  allegations  of  a 
complaint  so  deficient -in  substance  as  conclusively 
to  negative  the  existence  of  a  cause  of  action  at  the 
time  of  its  rendition.4  Where  the  facts  stated  in 
the  pleadings  do  not  justify  the  judgment  entered, 
the  latter  is  coram  non  judice,5  and  where  a  plead- 
ing is  so  drawn  as  'to  show  that  the  court  can 


have  no  jurisdiction  of  the  controversy,  or  is  a  nul- 
lity, any  judgment  rendered  thereon  is  void.6 


§41. 


Several  Counts 


The  more  modern  rule,  prevailing  under  statute,  gen* 
erally  regards  a  judgment  on  a  general  verdict  as  re* 
ferable  to  good  counts  in  a  pleading  and  valid  despite  the 
existence  of  bad  counts  therein. 

At  common  law,  and  in  the  absence  of  statute 
changing  the  rule,  where  the  verdict  is  general,  and 
one  of  the  counts  is  bad,  the  judgment  has  been  re- 
garded as  erroneous,7  except  where  all  the  counts 
relate  to  the  same  cause  of  action,  in  which  case  it 
has  been  held  that  the  rule  does  not  apply.8 

The  modern  rule,  however,  usually  applied  by  vir- 
tue of  statute,  holds  a  judgment  valid  under  such 
circumstances  where  there  is  one  good  count  in 
the  declaration  or  complaint,9  the  judgment  being 
referable  to  the  good  count,10  unless  it  affirma- 
tively appears  that  the  verdict  and  judgment  are 
based  only  on  the  defective  counts.11 

It  has  been  said  that  failure  to  require  a  party  to 
exercise  his  right  of  election  as  between  tort  and 
contract  counts  in  his  pleading  is  at  most  a  mere 


jurisdiction  to  enter  a,  Judgment 
Is  dependent  on  a  complaint  show- 
Ing  such  jurisdiction. — U.  S.  Nat. 
Bank  of  Portland  v.  Humphrey,  288 
P.  416,  49  Idaho  8.63. 

97.  Cal.— Moran   v.   Superior  Court 
in  and  for  Sacramento  County,  96 
P.2d    198,    (35    Cal.App.2d    629— Ex 
parte  Sargren,  27  P.2d  407,  135  Cal. 
App.     402 — Behrens     v.     Superior 
Court  in  and  for  Tuba  County,  28 
P.2d  428,   132   CaLApp.   704— Asso- 
ciated  Oil   Co.   Y.   Mullin,    294   P.' 
421,  110  Cal.App.  385. 

Mo. — Meierhoffer  v.  Kennedy,  263  8. 

W.  416,  504  Mo.  261. 
Neb. — Wistrom  v.  Porsling,  14  N.W. 

2d  217,  144  Neb.  638. 
N,M, — Corpus  Juris   cited  in  In  re 
Field's    Estate,    60    P.2d    945,    951, 
40  N.M.  423. 

Okl. — Raymer  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  87 
(P.2d    1097,    184    Okl.    392— -Protest 
of  Stanolind  Pipe  Line  Co.,  32  P. 
2d    869,    168    Okl.    281— Fowler  V. 
Margruret   Pillsbury   General   Hos- 
pital,   229    P.    442,    102    Okl.    203. 
33  C.J.  p  1133  note  96. 
Absence  of  affirmative  showing- 
Judgment  of   court   having  Juris- 
diction  of   subject    matter   and   of 
parties  is  not  void  on  ground  that 
petition  failed  to  state,  or  defective- 
ly stated,  cause  of  action,  unless  it 
affirmatively   appears   from   petition 
that  no  valid  cause  of  aetlon  could 
be  stated.— Schmid  v.  Farris,  07  P. 
2d  596,  169  Okl.  445. 

98.  Cal. — Trans-Pacific  Trading  Co. 
•  v.  Patsy  Frock  &  Romper  Co.,  209 

P.  357,  189  Cal.  509— Moran  v.  Su- 


perior Court  in  and  for  Sacramen- 
to County,  96  P.2d  193,  35  CaLApp. 
2d  629— Associated  Oil  Cd.  v.  Mul- 
lin, 294  P.  421,  110  CaLApp.  385 
— Sheehan  v.  All  Persons,  etc., 
252  P.  337,  80  CaLApp.  393— Roe- 
mer  v.  Nunes,  238  P.  820,  73  Cal. 
App.  -368. 

Okl. — Bynum  v.  Strain,  218  'P.  883, 
95  Okl.  45. 

Or.— Walling:  v.  I*ebb,  15  P,2d  370, 
140  Or.  691. 

33  C.J.  p  113*3  note  96  [a]   (3). 

99.  Mont.— State  ex  rel.  Cook  v. 
District  Court  of  Ninth  Judicial 
Dist  in  and  for  Glacier  County, 
69  P.2d  746,  105  Mont  72— State 
ex  rel.  Delmoe  v.  District  Court  of 
Fifth  Judicial  Dist,  46  P.2d  39, 
100  Mont  131. 

1.  Mont — State    ex  reL   Delmoe   v. 
District    Court    of    Fifth    Judicial 
Dist,   46   P.2d   39,   100   Mont.   131. 

2.  Mont. — Hodson   v.    O'Keeffe,    229 
P.  722,  71  Mont  322. 

3.  U.S. — McLellan     v.      Automobile 
Ins.  Co.  of  Hartford,  Conn.,  CJC.A. 
Ariz.,  80  F.2d  344. 

Ala.— Rhodes  v.  Sewell,  109  So.  179, 

21  Ala.App.  441. 
Idaho. — Jensen  v.  Gooch,  211  P.  551, 

36   Idaho    457— Howell   v.   Martin, 

211  OP.  528,  36  Idaho  468. 
Miss.-— U.    <S.    Fidelity    &    Guaranty 

Co.  v.  Plumbing:  Wholesale  Co.,  166 

So.  529,  175  Miss.  675. 
Tex. — Wright  v.   Shipman,   Civ.App., 

279  S.W.  296. 

4.  Mont — State    ex  rel.  Delmoe   v. 
District    Court    of   Fifth    Judicial 
Dist.,   46   P.2d   39,    100  Mont  131. 

100 


5.    Tenn. — State  v.   Collier,   53   S.W. 

2d  982,  164  Tenn.  163. 
6*    Tex. — -White   v.  Baker,    Civ.App., 

118  S.W.2d  -319. 

7.  N.H.— Glines   v.    Smith,    48   N.H. 
259. 

33  C.J.  p  1134  note  7. 

8.  N.H. — Glines   v.   Smith,   supra. 
33  C.J.  p  1134  note  9. 

9.  CaL— -Martin    v.     Pacific    South- 
west  Royalties,    106   P.2d   443,    41 
Cal.  App.  2d     161— Worthington     v. 
People's  State  Bank  of  Chula  Vis- 
ta, 288  P.  1086,  106  CaLApp.  238. 

111. — Standard   Oil   Co.    v.    Town    of 

(Patterson,    21   N.B.2d   12,    300   111. 

App.     $85 — Moore     v.     Jansen     & 

Schaefer,   265   IlLApp.   459. 
Ind. — Carter  v.  Thomas,  3  Ind.  213. 
Iowa. — McCornack  v.    Pickerell,    294 

N.W.  746,  229  Iowa  4-57. 
Tex. — Schaff    v.    Sanders,    Civ.App., 

257  S.W.    670,   affirmed,   Com. App., 

2e9  S.W.  1034. 
33  C.J.  p  1134  note  10. 
Statutory    change    of    common-law 

rule  discussed 
Miss.— Scott  v.  Peebles,  10  Miss.  546, 

561. 

10.  Ala. — Andalusia    Motor    Co.    v. 
Mullins,   18'3    So.    456,    28   Ala.App. 
201,  certtorari  denied  183  So.  460, 
236  Ala.  474. 

33  C.J.  p  1134  note  10  [a]. 

11.  TT.S. — Scull  v.  Roane,  Ark. Super., 
21    F.Cas.No.l2,570c,    Hempst    103. 

111. — Western  Stone  Co.  v.  Whalen, 
51  Ill.App.  512,  affirmed  38  N.& 
241,  151  111,  472,  42  Am.S.R,  244. 

33  C.J.  p  1134  note  11. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


irregularity  which  will  render  the  judgment  void- 
able rather  than  void.12  If  there  was  a  demurrer 
to  a  defective  count,  which  was  erroneously  over- 
ruled, the  judgment  is  invalid  where  the  record 
does  not  show  affirmatively  that  the  judgment  rests 
exclusively  on  the  good  counts;18  but  all  counts 
must  be  bad,  however,  to  establish  invalidity  where 
there  was  no  demurrer.1*  Where  the  verdict  is 
special,  and  responsive  to  a  good  count,  a  judg- 
ment thereon  is,  of  course,  unobjectionable.^ 
Where  all  the  counts  show  a  good  cause  of  action, 
the  judgment  is  not  bad  because  it  was  general,  al- 
though, on  the  evidence,  plaintiff  was  not  entitled 
to  recover  on  some  of  the  counts.1^ 

§  42.    Issues 

Ordinarily  the  pleading*  In  a  cause  must  evolve  an 
Issue  of  law  or  fact  before  a  Judgment  can  regularly  be 
rendered. 

Subject  to  exceptions  which  may  occur  in  the 
case  of  judgments  by  confession,  consent,  or  de- 
fault, as  discussed  infra  §§  150-151,  174,  193,  or 


following  submission  on  an  agreed  rtatement  of 
facts  under  principles  considered  infra  §  186,  it  is 
a  general  rule  that  the  pleadings  in  a  cause  must 
evolve  an  issue  of  law  or  fact  before  a  judgment 
can  regularly  be  rendered.17  A  judgment  rendered 
without  issue  joined  or  waived  is  erroneous,18  some 
authorities  holding  that  such  a  judgment  is  void19 
and  others  that  it  is  merely  voidable.2**  When  an 
issue  is  tried  which  is  not  within  the  pleadings,  no 
duty  rests  on  the  trial  court  to  render  judgment 
thereon  and  its  failure  or  refusal  to  do  so  is  not 
erroneous.21 


§43. 


Determination  of  All  Issues 


Generally  a  Judgment  must  dispose  of  all  Issues  In 
the  case,  either  expressly  or  by  necessary  Implication. 

The  prevailing  rule  under  common  law  and  stat- 
utes declaratory  thereof  requires  a  judgment  to  de- 
termine all  issues22  among  all  the  parties,23  except 
such  issues  as  are  waived  or  abandoned  on  the  trial 
of  the  case.24  So  the  judgment  must  be  as  broad 
as  the  issues  and  must  respond  to  all  the  issues  both 


18.  Cat.— Bank  of  America  Nat 
Trust  &  Savings  Ass'n  v.  Hill,  71 
P.2d  258,  9  CaL2d  495. 

13.  111.— Lake    Shore   &   M.   S.   Ry. 
Co.  v.  Barnes,  76  N.E.  629,  166  Ind. 
7,  3  L.R.A.,N.S.,  778. 

88  O.J.  p  1185  note  12. 

14.  Ind. — Kelsey  v.  Henry,  48  Ind. 
37— Dice  v.  Morris,  82  Ind.  288. 

15.  Pa. — McCredy      v.      James,      6 
Whart.  547, 

Va.— Binns  v.  Waddill,  82  Gratt.  588, 
73  Va.  €88. 

16.  Ala. — Jones    v.    Belue,    200    So. 
886,  241  Ala.  22. 

88  C.J.  p  1185  note  15. 

17.  W.Va, — Kinder  v.   Boomer  Coal 
&  Coke  Co.,  95  S.B.  580,  82  W.Va. 
82. 

83  C.J.  p  1155  n«te  21. 
Disposition  of  issues  presented 

In  the  interest  of  certainty,  Ju- 
dicial Judgments,  should  be  limited 
strictly  to  disposition  of  issues  ac- 
tually presented. — Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
National  Labor  Relations  Board,  C 
C.A.,  119  F.2d  181,  certiorari  denied 
61  S.Ct.  1119,  818  U.S.  595,  85  1*. 
Ed.  1549,  rehearing  denied  62  S.Ct 
55,  314  U.S.  708,  86  L.E3d.  565. 
Record  held  to  show  Joinder  of  is- 
sue 

Ala. — Denhaxn  v.  Tancey,  95  So.  201, 
19  Ala.App.  45,  certiorari  denied 
Ez  parte  Denhaxn,  95  So.  202,  208 
Ala.  637. 

18.  W.Va.— CUne    y.    Star    Coal    & 
Coke  Co.,  153  S.E.  148,  109  W.Va. 
101. 

83  C.J.  p  1135  note  22. 

19.  La. — Lacour   Plantation   Co.    v. 
Jewell,  173  So.  761,  186  La.  1055, 


— Rector  v.  Allied  Van  Lines,  App., 
198  So.  516 — Robinson  v.  Enloe, 
121  So.  320,  10  La.App.  435. 

Ohio. — Binns  v.  Isabel,  12  Ohio  Supp. 
115,  affirmed  51  N.B.2d  501,  72 
Ohio  App.  222. 

33  C.J.  p  1135  note  24. 

20.  Tenn. — Doyle  v.  Smith,  1  Coldw. 
15. 

21.  Neb.— Bowman  v.  Cobb,  258  N. 
W.  535,  128  Neb.  289. 

22.  Cal.— Mather  v.  Mather,   140  P. 
2d   808,   22  Cal.2d   713— Nakamura 
v.  Kondo,  223  P.  425,  65  CaLApp. 
211. 

Ga, — South  View  Cemetery  Ass'n  v. 
Hailey,  34  S.E.2d  863,  199  Ga. 
478. 

Mo.— Ex  parte  Fowler,  275  S.W.  529— 
Gay  v.  Kansas  City  Public  Service 
Co.,  App.,  77  S.W.2d  133— Nokes  v. 
Nokes,  App..  8  S.W.2d  879— Spring- 
field Gas  &  Electric  Co.  y.  Frater- 
nity Bldg.  Co.,  App.,  264  S.W.  429. 
N.Y.— Water  Right  &  Electrical  Co. 
v.  Rockland  Light  &  Power  Co., 
280  N.T.S.  317,  245  App.Div.  739— 
Maclvor  v.  -Schwartzman,  260  N.T. 
S.  707,  237  App.Div.  825. 
OkL-r Hurley    v.    Hurley,    127    P.2d 
147,  191  Okl.  194— Foreman  v.  Ri- 
ley,  211  P.  495,  88  Okl.  75. 
Tex.— Southern   Pac.    Co.   v.    Ulmer, 
ConuApp.,  286  S.W.  193 — Harris  v. 
O'Brien,   Civ.App.,    54    S.W.2d   277. 
Wyo. — Norris     v.     United     Mineral 

Products   Co.,    158    P.2d   679. 
33  C.J.  p  1135  note  26. 
Disputed  items;  remission 

(1)  In  action  on  note  and  open  ac- 
count, Judgment  cannot  be  entered 
for  admitted  indebtedness  reserving 
disputed  items  for  subsequent  trial,, 

101 


as  this  would  result  in  two  Judg- 
ments in  one  action. — Lakin-Allen 
Electric  Co.  v.  Lamb,  226  N.W.  229, 
247  Mich.  590. 

(2)  If  defendant  tenders  Judgment 
for  a  confessed  amount,  however, 
plaintiff  may  take  Judgment  for  such 
amount,  and  thereby  remit  amount 
in  dispute. — Grand  Dress  v.  Detroit 
Dress  Co.,  227  N.W.  723,  248  Mich. 
447. 

Eitner  party  may  complain  of  and 
have  reversal  of  Judgment  which 
does  not  have  effect  of  determining 
sole  •  issue  as  to  existence  of  con- 
tract on  which  plaintiff  seeks  to  re- 
cover.— McKeel  v.  Mercer,  29  P.2d 
939,  167  Okl.  413. 

23.  Mo.— Electrolytic    Chlorine    Co. 
v.  Wallace  &  Tiernan  Co..  41  S.W. 
2d    1049,    328    Mo.    782,    78    A.L.R. 
930— Neal  v.  Curtis  &  Co.  Mfg.  Co., 
41  S.W.2d  543,  328  Mo.  389. 

Tex.— Patton    v.    Mitchell,    CivJlpp., 
13  .S.W.2d  146. 

24.  D.C. — Anderson    v.    Mackey,    16 
D.C.  335. 

Ky.— Hurley  v.  Hurley.  127  P.2d  147, 

191  Okl.  194. 
Okl.— Foreman  v.  Riley,  211  P,  495, 

88   Okl.   75— Wells  v.   Shriver,   197 

P.  460,  81  Okl.  108. 
33  C.J.  p  1136  note  28. 
Counterclaim 

In  absence  of  showing  that  de- 
fendants pressed  counterclaim,  de- 
fendants will  be  held  to  have  ac- 
quiesced in  rendition  of  Judgment 
dismissing  petition  without  dispos- 
ing of  counterclaim,— <Jity  of  St 
Louis  ex  reL  and  to  Use  of  Sears 
v.  (Clark,  Mo.App.,  $5  S.W.2d  980. 


§  43 


JUDGMENTS 


49  .C.J.S. 


of  law  and  fact,25  and  it  must  dispose  of  the  entire 
subject  matter  of  the  litigation26  and  conclude  all 
further  inquiry  into  the  issues  joined  by  the  plead- 
ings, leaving  nothing  further  to  be  done  except  to 
carry  the  judgment  into  execution.27  In  rendering 
judgment  the  court  may,  however,  properly  disre- 
gard an  immaterial  issue.28  A  judgment  will  be 
held  sufficient  if  it  disposes  of  material  issues  by 
necessary  implication  even  though  it  does  not  do  so 
in  formal  terns,29  and  as  a  rule  it  will  be  presumed 
that  the  court  passed  on  all  questions  properly  pre- 
sented which  under  its  own  ruling  it  was  possible 
for  it  to  adjudge.30 

Ordinarily  judgment  should  not  be  rendered  with- 


out disposing  of  matters  raised  by  defendant's 
pleadings,31  such  as  a  counterclaim82  or  cross  com- 
plaint,33 unless  the  determination  of  the  issue  on 
which  the  judgment  is  based  is  necessarily  decisive 
of  the  whole  case34  or  the  actions  have  been  sepa- 
rated under  statutes  or  court  rules  permitting  such 
practice.35  An  answer  filed  by  one  of  several  de- 
fendants, which  may  be  or  become  common  to  all, 
and  which  goes  to  the  right  of  plaintiff  to  recover, 
precludes  judgment  against  a  codefendant  until  the 
issues  have  been  disposed  of  by  the  court.36  It  has 
been  held  improper  to  render  judgment  on  an  inter- 
vention without  at  the  same  time  acting  on  the  prin- 
cipal action.37 


25.  Mo. — Magee  v.   Mercantile-Com- 
merce Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  98  S.W. 
2d   614,   839   Mo.    559 — Lummi  Bay 
Packing*  Co.  v.   Kryder,   App.,    1 
S.W.  543. 

Pa, — Thompson  v.  Emerald  Oil  Co., 
123  A.  810,  279  Pa.  321. 

Tex. — Standard  Motor  Co.  v.  Witt- 
man,  Civ.App.,  271  S.W.  186— Fort 
Worth  Acid  Works  v.  City  of 
Tort  Worth,  Oiv.App.,  248  S.W. 
822,  affirmed  City  of  Fort  Worth 
v.  Fort  Worth  Acid  Works  Co., 
Com.App.,  259  S.W.  919. 

33  C.J.  p  1136  note  27. 

26.  Tex. — Southern   Trading   Co.   of 
Texas  v.   Feldman,  Com. App.,   259 
S.W.  566— Patton  v.  Mitchell,  Civ. 
App.,    13    S.W.2d    146 — Lindsey   v. 
Hart,  Civ.App.,  260  S.W.   286. 

27.  Okl. — Foreman  v.  Riley,   211  P. 
495,  88  Okl.  75. 

28.  Tex. — Miller     v.     Lemm,     Com. 
App.,  276  S.W.  211. 

29.  Ga. — Pittman  Const.  Co.  v.  City 
of  Marietta,  172  S.E.  644,  177  Ga. 
573. 

Tex. — Medearis  v.  Buratti,  Civ.App., 
275  S.W.  617— Panhandle  Grain  & 
Elevator  Co.  v.  Dowlin,  Civ.App., 
247  S.W.  873. 

Judgment  upheld  as  sufficiently  dis- 
posing' of  all  issue* 

Mo.— Saxbury  v.  Coons,  98  S.W.2d 
$62. 

Tex. — Whisen-ant  v.  Cole,  Civ.App., 
285  S.W.  835— Mathis  v.  Overland 
Automobile  Co.  of  Dallas,  Civ. 
App.,  265  S.W.  1069. 

30.  Ga. — South       View       Cemetery 
Ass'n    v.    Hailey,    34    S.E.2d    863, 
199  Ga.  478. 

Tex. — Cramer    v.    Cornell,    Civ.App., 
108  S.W.2d  1115,  reversed  on  oth- 
er   grounds    130    S.W.2d    1023,    134 
Tex.  17. 
Effect  of  recital 

Recital  in  judgment  that  issues 
were  found  for  defendant  means  all 
essential  issues,  including  those 
raised  by  denial.— Di  Blasi  v.  Di 
Blasi,  163  A.  473,  116  Conn.  699.  , 


Irrespective  of  whether  or  not 
pleaded,  on  the  basis  of  Inescapable 
inherency,  it  may  be  assumed  that 
the  court  passed  on  a  constitutional 
question  involved  in  the  'decision 
rendered.—- State  ex  rel.  Rose  v. 
Webb  City,  64  S.W.2d  597,  333  Mo. 
1127,  transferred,  see,  App.,  74  S.W. 
2d  45. 
31.  Ky. — Jones  v.  Stearns,  260  S.W. 

375,  202  Ky.  598. 
S.C.— Watson    v.    Matley,    114    S.E. 

412,  121  S.C.  482. 
W.Va. — Rosier  v.   McDaniel,   28   S.E. 

2d  908,  126  W.Va.  434. 
33  C.J.  p  1156  note  29. 
Equitable  defense 
Ky. — Jones  v.  Stearns,  260  S.W.  373, 

202  Ky.  598. 
Flea  of  privilege 

Trial  court  was  unauthorized  to 
render  Judgment  on  merits  until  it 
had  finally  disposed  of  plea  of  priv- 
ilege; and  a  controverting  affidavit 
to  plea  of  privilege  presents  real  is- 
sues which  must  be  tried  and  dis- 
posed of  before,  or  at  time  of,  dis- 
position of  main  cause,  unless  waiv- 
ed.— Smith  v.  Watson,  Tex.Civ.App., 
44  S.W.2d  815. 
312.  Ky.— Great  Atlantic  &  Pacific 

Tea  Co.   v.  Lexington-Hazard  Ex- 
press   Co.'s    Receiver,    64    S.W.2d 

631,  246  Ky.  102. 
Mo. — Liepman  v.  Rothschild,  262   S. 

W.  685,  216  Mo.App.  251. 
3a    Cal. — Browne  v.  T.  J.  Lawrence 

Co.,   268   P.   631,   204  Cal.    424. 

34.  Ky. — Haywood  v.  Gooch,  86  S. 
W.2d  665,  260  Ky.  667. 

Mo. — City  of  St.  Louis  ex  rel.  and 
to  Use  of  Sears  v.  Clark,  App.,  35 
S.W.2d  986. 

Tex. — Threadgill  v.  Fagan,  Civ.App., 
64  S.W.2d  405— Williams  v.  Walk- 
er, Clv.App.,  290  S.W.  299— Po- 
mona Mut  Oil  Syndicate  v.  Wil- 
liamsport  Wire  Rope  Co.,  Civ.App., 
282  S.W.  958. 

33  C.J.  p  1136  note  -30. 

Necessary  implication 

(1)  Set-off    or    counterclaim    need 

not  be  expressly  mentioned  in  judg- 

102 


ment,  provided  it  is  disposed  of  by 
necessary  implication. — 'Prim  v.  La- 
tham, iTex.Civ.App.,  6  S.W.2d  175, 
error  refused. 

(2)  Judgment  for  plaintiff  for 
amount  sued  for  without  mention- 
ing cross  action  by  necessary  impli- 
cation disposes  of  entire  case. — Pan- 
handle Compress  &  Warehouse  Co. 
v.  Best,  Tex.Civ.App.,  58  S.W.2d  140. 
Unliquidated  amount 
.  Where  plaintiffs'  claim  was  par- 
tially unliquidated  and  defendants' 
counterclaim  was  also  for  unliqui- 
dated amount,  judgment  was  in 
proper  form  and  not  for  an  impos- 
sible amount,  judgment  must  be  af- 
firmed, even  though  no  reference 
was  made  therein  to  the  counter- 
claim.— Zappolo  v.  Lanigan,  285  N. 
Y.S.  863,  246  App.Div.  443,  affirmed 
4  N.E,2d  815,  272  N.Y.  584. 

35.  Tex. — Latshaw    v.    Barnes,   Civ. 
App.,  170  S.W.Sd  531. 

Segregation    under    civil    procedure 

rule 

Where  court,  under  civil  procedure 
rule,  segregated  cause  of  action  aris- 
ing on  petition  of  intervention  and 
tried  that  cause  separate  from  orig- 
inal cause  of  action  and  cross  ac- 
tions, court  was  authorized  to  enter 
separate  and  final  Judgment  on  such 
petition  without  finally  disposing  of 
issues  raised  by  original  suit  or 
cross  actions. — Latshaw  v.  Barnes, 
supra. 

36.  Ky.— Rucker  v.  Baker,  177  S.W. 
2d  878,  296  Ky.  505. 

37*    La. — T  i  c  k  f  a  w   Homegrowers' 
Ass'n  v.  Gallodoro,  132  So.  767,  15 
I/a, App.  686. 
Garnishment 

Judgment  awarding  plaintiff  in 
garnishment  suit,  two  interveners 
and  garnishee  amounts  totaling  less 
than  sum  shown  by  garnishee's  an- 
swer to  be  due  third  intervener  on 
judgment,  claimed  by  latter  to  be  ex- 
empt from  garnishment,  held  not  er- 
roneous as  failing  to  dispose  of 
amount. in  controversy,  remainder  of 
funds  in  g»arnishee's  hands  being 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  44 


A  failure  to  pass  on  a  motion  is  immaterial,  as 
the  entry  of  judgment  is  in  effect  a  final  disposition 
of  motions  previously  filed.38 

Partial  judgment  under  statute  or  ride.  Under 
statutes  or  court  rules  providing  that,  where  .after 
answer  part  of  plaintiff's  claim  is  admitted  or  tin- 
contested,  plaintiff  may  have  judgment  for  so  much 
of  his  claim,  subject  to  such  terms  as  may  be  just, 
the  intent  is  to  enable  the  court  of  first  instance 
to  clear  away  portions  of  a  claim  or  defense  not 
involving  disputed  questions  of  fact  by  entering  a 
partial  judgment  thereon.3^  Such  a  statute  should 
not  be*  so  construed  as  to  permit  a  judgment  on 
.  part  of  a  cause  of  action  where  the  part  is  an  in- 

in  effect  awarded  to  third  interven- 
er  as  exempt  without  necessity  for 
rendition  of  Judgment  in  his  favor 
for  such  amount — Coles  v.  Pewel, 
Teac.Civ.App.,  80  S.W.2d  323,  error 
dismissed. 

38.  111.— Washington   Park  Club  v. 
Baldwin,  59  111.  App.  61. 

33  C.J.  p  1137  note  85. 

39.  'N.J.— Warren  Balderston  Co.  v. 
Ivory,    16    A.2d    617,    125   N.J.Law 
469. 

40.  N.Y.— Lowe  v.  Lowe,   192  N.E. 
291,  265  N.T.  197. 

41.  Cal. — Sheeny  v.  Roman  Catholic 


complete  fragment  of  an  entire  claim  which  cannot 
be  thus  divided  without  mutilation.40 

§  44.    Evidence 

As  a  general  rule  a  Judgment  must  be  supported  by 
legally  adduced  evidence  of  a  substantial  and  sufficient 
character,  and  a  judgment  may  not  rest  on  mere  specu- 
lation, surmise,  or  suspicion. 

.While  exceptions  may  occur  in  respect  of  judg- 
ments by  confession  or  consent,  or  those  entered  on 
admissions  or  default,  under  principles  discussed  in- 
fra §§  162,  174,  185,  210-213,  as  a  general  rule  the 
evidence  must  sustain  the  judgment,41  proof  being 
as  essential  to  the  support  of  a  judgment  as  plead- 
ing.42 The  evidence  must  be  of  a  substantial  char- 
acter,^ sufficient  to  support  the  judgment  ren- 
dered.44 The  judgment  must  be  founded  on  suffi- 


Archbishop  of  San  Francisco,  122 
P.2d  60,  49  Cal.App.2d  537. 

HI. — Oak  Park  Trust  &  Savings 
Bank  v.  Soulias,  3  N.E.2d  159, 
284  Ill.App.  646. 

Ky.— Producers'  Coal  Co.  of  Ken- 
tucky v.  Barnaby,  275  S.W.  625, 
210  Ky.  244— City  Bank  &  Trust 
Co.  of  Hopkinsville  v.  Dark  To- 
bacco Growers'  Co-op.  Ass'n,  272 
.S.W.  751,  209  Ky.  830. 

Mo. — American  Extension  School  of 
Law  v.  Ragland,  112  S.W.2d  110, 
232  Mo.App.  763— Brie  City  Iron 


Works   v.    Ferer,   App., 
1008. 


263    S.W. 


N.X— Automobile  Ins.  Co.  of  Hart- 
ford, Conn.  v.  Conway,  158  A.  480, 
109  N.J.EQ.  628— Rich  v.  Inter- 
City  Transp.  Co.,  165  A.  296,  11 
N.J.Misc.  243. 

N.T. — Sabl  v.  Laenderbank  Wien  Ak- 
tiengesellschaft,  80  N.T.S.2d  608, 
opinion  supplemented  33  N.T.S.2d 
764. 

Or.— U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaranty  Co. 
v.  Zidell-Steinberg  Co.,  50  P.2d 
584,  151  Or.  5<38,  modified  on  other 
grounds  51  P.2d  687,  151  Or.  538. 

S.B.— Morrison  v.  Connery,  229  N.W. 
392,  56  S.D.  469. 

Tex. — Cohen  v.  City  of  Houston,  Civ. 
App.,  185  S.W.2d  450— Shackelford 
v.  Neilon,  Civ.App.,  100  S.W.2d 
,  io37 — Motley  v.  Tom  Green  Coun- 
ty, Civ.App.,  93  S.W.2d  768,  re- 


versed on  other  grounds  Tom 
Green  County  v.  Motley,  118  S.W. 
2d  306,  132  Tex.  54— Matrimonial 
Mut  Ass'n  of  Texas  v.  Rutherford, 
Civ.App.,  41  S.W.2d  719,  error  dis- 
missed— Gilmer  v.  Graham,  Civ. 
App.,  26  S.W.2d  687,  reversed  on 
other  grounds,  Com.App.,  52  S.W. 
2d  263— National  Life  &  Accident 
Ins.  Co.  of  Tennessee  v.  Wash- 
ington, Civ.App.f  295  S.W.  204 — 
Austin  Bros.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Road 
Dist  No.  -3  of  Liberty  County, 
Civ.App.,  247  S.W.  674. 
Conformity  of  judgment  to  proof 

generally  see  infra  §§  47-54. 
Arbitrary  declaration,  if  without  evi- 
dence 

A  Judgment,  entered  without  hear- 
ing evidence  on  basic  issues  of  fact, 
is  only  arbitrary  declaration  of 
judge,  having  no  reference  to  liabili- 
ty involved,  even  though  purporting 
to  be  judicial  determination  of  judg- 
ment creditors'  rights. — Burket  v. 
Reliance  Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  11  N.E. 
2d  6,  367  111.  196. 

42.  Ky.— ^Consolidation  Coal  Co.  v. 
King,  244  S.W.  303,  196  Ky.  54. 

Tenn. — Poster  v.  Andrews,  189  S. 
W.2d  580. 

Tex. — Birdville  Independent  School 
Dist  v.  Deen,  Civ.App.,  141  S.W.2d 
680,  affirmed  Deen  v.  Birdville  In- 
dependent School  Dist,  159  S.W.2d 
111,  138  Tex,  3-39— Forman  v.  Bar- 
ron,  Civ.App.,  120  S.W.2d  827,  er- 
ror refused— Shackelford  v.  Nei- 
lon, Civ.App.,  100  S.W.2d  1037 — 
Traders  &  General  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Lincecum,  Civ.App.,  81  S.W.2d  549, 
reversed  oil  other  grounds  107  S. 
W.2d  585,  130  Tex.  220— Karr  v. 
Oockerham,  Civ.App.f  71  S.W.2d 
905,  error  dismissed — Morten  Inv. 
Co.  v.  Trevey,  Civ.App.,  8  S.W.2d 
527,  error  dismissed— Humble  Oil 
&  Refining  Co.  v.  Southwestern 
Bell  Telephone  Co.,  Civ.App.,  2  S. 
W.2d  488. 

33  C.J.  p  1142  note  59. 

103 


43,  U.S.— U.  S.  v.  Perry,  C.C.A.Ark., 
55  F.2d  819. 

Miss.— Moore  v.  Sykes'  Estate,  149 
So.  789,  167  Miss.  212. 

Mont — Ashley  v/ Safeway  Stores,  47 
P.2d  53,  100  Mont.  312. 

N.M. — Jones  v.  Jernigan,  223  P.  100, 
29  N.M.  399. 

44*  Ark. — Brunson  v.  Teague,  186  S. 
W.  78,  123  Ark.  594. 

Fla. — Blue  Lake  Celery  Co.  v.  Pey- 
ton-Lofberg  Live  Stock  Co.,  94  So. 
862,  84  Fla.  675. 

Ga. — Georgia  Power  Co.  v.  Woodall, 
172  S.E.  76,  48  Ga.App.  85. 

Idaho.— Muckle  v.  Hill.  187  P.  943, 
32  Idaho  661. 

HI. — Hopper  v.  Hopper,  41  N.E.2d 
786,  -314  IlLApp.  572. 

Ky.— Jordan  v.  City  of  Olive  Hill, 
162  S.W.2d  229,  290  Ky*  828. 

Neb. — Macumber  v.  Thomas,  207  N. 
W.  31,  114  Neb.  290. 

N.Y.— Samuel  Strauss  &  Co.  v.  Katz, 
206  N.Y.8.  246,  210  App.Div.  405 
— Raby  v.  Greater  New  York  De- 
velopment Co.,  135  N.Y.S.  813, 
151  App.Div.  72,  affirmed  104  N. 
E.  1139,  210  N.Y.  586— Phelan  v. 
New  York  Central  &  H.  R.  R.  Co., 
115  N.Y.S.  35— Putzel  v.  Fargo, 
103  N.Y.S.  766— Simon  v.  Danziger, 
98  N.Y.S.  674. 

OkL— Steiner  v.  Steiner,  10  (P.2d  641, 
156  OkL  255 — Barstow  v.  Chattee, 
239  P.  622,  112  Okl.  81. 

Pa. — Pennsylvania  Labor  Relations 
Board  v.  Kaufmann  Department 
Stores,  29  A.2d  90,  345  Pa,  398. 

Tex. — Ketch  v.  Weaver  Bros.,  Com. 
App.,  276  S.W.  676— Cohen  v.  City 
of  Houston,  Civ. App.,  185  S.W.2d 
450— Spradlin  v.  Gibbs,  Civ.App., 
159  S.W.Bd  246 — Corona  Petroleum 
Co.  v.  Jameson,  Civ. App.,  146  S. 
W.2d  512,  error  dismissed,  judg- 
ment  correct — Christie  v.  Hud- 
speth  County  Conservation  and 
Reclamation  Dist.  No.  1,  Civ.App., 
64  S.W.2d  978^-Carpenter  v.  Par- 
mer  County,  OV.APP.,  61  S.W.2d 


§  44 


JUDGMENTS 


49    O.J.S. 


cient  facts  legally  ascertained,4*  and  cannot  rest  on 
evidence  of  an  incompetent  character,46  or  which 
was  never  adduced  in  court,47  such  as  matters  not 
put  in  evidence  of  which  the  court  took  judicial 
notice.48  A  judgment  may  not  rest  on  conjecture 
and  speculation49  or  on  mere  surmise  or  suspi- 
cion,50 nor  may  a  judgment  find  support  in  assump- 
tions51 or  in  possibilities  or  probabilities  falling 
short  of  actual  proof.52  While  an  inference  of  the 


truth  of  facts  essential  to  a  cause  of  action  will  sup- 
port a  judgment  rendered  in  accordance  with  such 
facts,53  the  court  should  not  base  its  judgment  on 
a  state  of  facts  so  inadequately  developed  that  it 
cannot  be  determined  where  inference  ended  and 
conjecture  began.54  However,  it  is  not  essential  to 
the  validity  of  a  judgment  that  it  rest  entirely  on 
uncontradicted  evidence,55  and  it  is  not  fatal  that  a 
different  conclusion  might  have  been  reached  on  all 


Wash. — Johnson  v.   Goo'denough,   175 

OP.  306.  103  Wash.  625. 
83  C.J.  p  1141  note  57,  p  1142  note 

58,  p  1164  note  96—47  C.J.  p  1009 

note  88. 
Prlma  facie  ca*« 

Even  though  defendant  flies  no 
answer,  plaintiff  in  civil  proceeding, 
whether  summary  or  ordinary,  must 
at  least  make  out  prima  facie  case 
before  being  entitled  to  Judgment. 
— Grosjean  v.  Wallace  Johnson  Mo- 
tor Co.,  La.App.,  171  So.  184. 
Evidence  held  sufficient  to  support 

(1)  Generally. 

U.S. — State  Bank  of  New  York  v. 
Henderson  County,  Ky.,  C.C.A.Ky., 
35  F.2d  859,  certiorari  denied  Hen- 
derson County,  State  of  Kentucky, 
v.  State  Bank  of  New  York,  50  S. 
Ct.  245,  281  U.S.  728,  74  L.Ed.  1144, 
1145. 

Ky.— Small  v.  Minton,  192  S.W.2d 
184. 

Tex. — St.  Louis  -Southwestern  Ry. 
Co.  of  Texas  v.  Neely,  Civ.App., 
•296  S.W.  948. 

(2)  Judgment  foreclosing  mechan- 
ics'  liens  held  not   objectionable  as 
rendered    on    unverified    account    to 
admissibility    of    which    defendants 
excepted,  where  other  facts  showed 
amount  due. — Boozer  v.  Smith,  Tex. 
Civ.App.,  36  S.W.2d  10S4,   error  dis- 
missed. 

(3)  A    judgment    which    did    not 
state  whether  it  <was  based  on  one  or 
both     counts     of     declaration    was 
without   error  if  evidence  sustained 
either   count. — Yeats   v.   Moody,   175 
So.  719,  128  Fla.  658. 

(4)  Judgment    solely    on    evidence 
prior  to  .filing  of  amended  pleadings 
bringing    in    new.  parties    held   not 
erroneous  where  court  prior  to  judg- 
ment ordered  dismissal  of  new  par- 
ties and  no  new  issue  was  raised  .by 
amendment. — McCreary   v.   Falconer, 
44  P.2d  303,  S  Cal.2d  335. 

45.  Tex. — Motley     v.     Tom     Green 
County,    Civ,App.,    93    S.W.2d    768, 
reversed    on    other    grounds    Tom 
Green  County  v.  Motley,  118  S.W. 
2d    306,    132    Tex.    54— Blalock   v. 
Jones,  Civ.App.,  1  S.W.2d  400,  er- 
ror dismissed* 

46.  Mich* — Refrigerating  Equipment 
Co.   v.    Finch,   242   N.W.   217.   257 
Mich.  023. 


Tex.— -Hood   v,   Robertson,    Civ.App., 

33  S.W.2d  £82. 
W.Va. — Board  of  Trustees  of  Lewis 

Pilchard  Charity  Fund  v.  Mankin 

Inv.   Co.,   193   S.E.   805,   119  W.Va. 

391. 
Unlawful  search  and  seizure 

A  civil  judgment,  in  the  procure- 
ment of  which  evidence  obtained 
through  unlawful  search  and  seizure 
in  violation  of  the  Fourth  Amend- 
ment to  federal  Constitution  is  used, 
is  invalid.— -Rogers  v.  U.  S.,  C.C.A.R. 
I.,  97  F.2d  691. 
Evidence  as  to  unpleaded  matters 

(1)  Evidence    not    based    on    any 
pleadings    is    incompetent   and    will 
not  support  a  judgment,  even  though 
admitted  by  court  without  objection. 
— Stone  v.   Boone,   Tex.Civ.App.,   160 
S.W.2d  578,  error  refused. 

(2)  Evidence  adduced  on  an  issue 
not  made  by  the  pleadings  will  not 
support    a    judgment. — Mullinax    v. 
Snorgrass,    Tex.Civ.App.,    83    S.W.2d 
1080,  error  refused. 

(3)  Necessity     of     pleadings     as 
well   as   evidence    to    support  judg- 
ment see  supra  §40. 

Evidence  which  has  been  stricken 
will  not  sustain  a  judgment. — In  re 
Jolly's  Estate,  229  IlLApp.  508. 

47.  Mo.— State      ex     rel.     National 
Lead  Co.  v;  Smith,  App.,  134  S.W. 
2d  1061. 

Pa.— Riedrich    v.    Riedrich,     62    Pa. 

Super.  189. 
Tex. — Church    v.    Western    Finance 

Corporation,    Civ.App.,    22    S.W.2d 

1074. 

TTnoffered  exhibits 
Mo. — Carroll  v.  Carroll,  App.,  237  S. 

W.  843 — Taylor  v.  Fuqua,  219  S.W. 

971,  203  Mo.App.  581. 

48.  Mo.— -Hume  v.  Wright,  274  S.W. 
741— State    ex   rel.    National   Lead 
Co.    v.    Smith,    App.,    134    S.W.2d 
106-1. 

49.  U.S. — Deposit  Guaranty  Bank  & 
Trust  Co.   v.   U.    S.,  D.aMlss.,   48 
F.'Supp.    869 — Orrill   v.   Prudential 
Life  Ins.  Co.  of  America,  D.C.Cal., 
44    FjSupp.    902 — Greenwood  Com- 
press &,  Storage  Co.  v.  Fly,  D.C. 
Miss.,  24  F.Supp.  168,  reversed  on 
other    grounds,    C.C.A.,    102    F.2d 
600. 

Ky.-r-Central  Kentucky  Natural  Gas 
Co.  v.  Williams,  60  S.W.2d  580, 
249  Ky.  242. 

104 


Mich.— Michigan  Aero  Club  v.  Shel- 
ley, 278  N.W.  121,  283  Mich.  401. 

Miss. — Blizzard  v.  Fitzsimmons,  10 
So.2d  343,  193  Miss.  484— Furr  v. 
Brookhaven  Creamery,  192  So.  838, 
188  Miss.  1. 

Mo. — Locke  v.  Warden,  App.,  '179  S. 
W.2d  624 — Brinker  v.  Miller,  App.. 
162  S.W.2d  295— Bauer  v.  Wood, 
154  S.W.2d  356,  2-36  Mo.App.  26«6. 

Nev. — Richards  v.  Vermilyea,  175  P. 
188,.  42  Nev.  294,  rehearing  denied 
180  P.  121,  42  Nev.  294. 

50.  Cal.— -De  Hart  v.  Allen,  111  P.2d 
342,  43  Cal.App.2d  479. 

Miss.— Blizzard   v.   Fitzsimmons,    10 

So.2d  343,  193  Miss.  484. 
Existence  of  fact 

If  evidence  raises  only  a  surmise 
or  suspicion  of  the  existence  of  a 
fact  sought  to  be  established,  a 
judgment  will  not  be  permitted  to 
rest  on  such  fact — Shell  Oil  Co.  v. 
Howth,  159  S.W.2d  483,  138  Tex. 
357. 

51.  La. — Cali    v.    Cloverland    Dairy 
Products    Co.,   App.,   21   So.2d   166. 

Nev. — Richards  v.  Vermilyea,  175  P. 
188,  42  Nev.  294,  rehearing  denied 
180  P.  121,  42  Nev.  294. 

52.  La. — Evans    v.    Campbell,    App., 
9  So.2d  91. 

Mich.— Michigan  Aero  Club  v.  Shel- 
ley,  278  N.W.    121,   283   Mich.   401. 
Miss. — Furr   v.    Brookhaven    Cream- 
ery,  192   So.   838,   188  Miss.  1. 
Pa.— Winograd  v.   Coombs,    20   A,2d 

315,  342  Pa.  268. 
What  might  have  been 

Judgments  cannot  be  rendered  on 
what  might  have  been,^  but  there 
must  be  proof  fairly  tending  to  e&- 
tablish  fact  alleged. — Salaban  'v. 
East  St.  Louis  &  Interurban  Water 
Co.,  1  N.E.2d  731,  284  Ill.App,  358. 

53.  Cal. — Gish  v.  Los   Angeles   Ry. 
Corporation,   90   P.2d   792,   13  Cal. 
2d  570. 

54.  Miss.— Moore  v.  Sykes*  Estate, 
149    So.   789,   167   Miss.   212. 

55.  Okl.— -Bradley  v.  Little,  134  P.2d 
126,  192  Okl.  121. 

Function  of  Jury 

Trial  court  is  under  no  duty  to  de- 
termine by  its  judgment  truth  or 
talsity  of  evidentiary  facts,  which 
is  for  jury  incidentally  as  a  means 
of  determining  its  verdict. — South- 
ern Pine  Lumber  Co.  v.  Whiteman, 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§45 


the  evidence  adduced;56  but  a  valid  judgment  may 
not  be  predicated  on  evidence  that  cannot  be  true.57 

The  insufficiency  of  supporting  evidence  has  in 
some  instances  been  held  to  render  a  judgment 
void,5'8  but  in  others  it  has  been  regarded  as  render- 
ing the  judgment  merely  erroneous  but  not  void.59 
It  has  been  held  that  a  judgment  is  not  rendered 
void  by  irregularities  in  the  taking  of  proof,6**  or  by 
perjured  testimony.61 


§  45.    Verdict  and  Findings 

A  valid  Judgment  must  be  predicated  on  the  deci- 
sion, findings,  or  verdict  of  the  trial  court  OP  Jury. 

The  issues  raised  by  the  pleadings,  whether  of 
law  or  fact,  must  be  determined  in  favor  of  one 
party  or  the  other  before  judgment  can  be  entered; 
there*  must  be  either  decision  or  findings  by  the 
court  or  referee62  or  the  verdict  of  a  jury.63  Where 
a  case  is  tried  to  the  court  and  a  jury  is  called  to 


TexJCiv.App..   104  S.W.*d   635.   error 
dismissed. 

56.  Okl.—  Bradley  v.  Little,  134  P.2d 
126,  192  Okl.  121. 

57.  U.S.  —  V.    W.   Woolworth   Co.   v. 
Davis,     C.C.A.Okl.,     41     F.2d     342, 
certiorari   denied  51   S.Ct   33,   282 
U.S.  859.  75  LJEd.  760. 

Total  disability 

Evidence  that  an  insured  was  to- 
tally disabled  within  the  meaning  of 
a  war  risk  insurance  policy  could 
not  support  a  judgment  on  the  poli- 
cy where  such  evidence  could  not 
have  been  true  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  it  was  conclusively  shown  that 
during  the  period  of  alleged  total 
disability  insured  continuously  fol- 
lowed a  substantially  gainful  occu- 
pation. —  U.  S.  v.  Perry,  .C.OA.Ark., 
55  F.2d  *19. 

58.  La,  —  Fields   v.  McAdams,   App., 
15  So.2d  24$. 

N.J.  —  Gimbel   Bros  v.  Corcoran,  192 

A.  715,  15  N.J.Misc.  5*8. 
Tenn.—  -Lewis  v.  Burrow,  127  S.W.2d 

795,  23  Tenn.App.  145. 


error 


A  judgment  unsupported  by  testi- 
mony is  fundamentally  erroneous.  — 
Norvell-Shapleigh  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Lumpkin,  Tex.Civ.App.,  150  S.W. 
1194. 

59.    Ky.—  -  Starbird  v.  Blair,  12  S.W. 

2d  693,  227  Ky.  258—  Reed  v.  Bun- 

yan,    10   S.W.2d   824,    226  Ky.   261 

—  Sizemore    v.    Hunter,    269    S.W. 

542.  207  Ky.  453—  Spencer  v.  Mil- 

liken,  4  Ky.L.  856. 
N.T.  —  Jordan  v.   Van  Epps,   85   N.T. 

427—  In  re  Jenkins,  117  N.T.S.  74, 

132  App.Div.  339. 
Term.  —  Globe  &  Republic  Ins.  Co.  of 

America  v.  Shields,  96  S.W.2d  947, 

170  Tenn.  485. 
33  C.J.  p  1141  note  57   [a]—  34  C.J. 

p  563  note  S3. 
Secondary  evidence 

Judgment  based  on  secondary  evi- 
dence is  not  within  itself  void.  — 
Busby  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  Tex. 
Civ.App.,  68  S.W.2d  328,  error  dis- 
missed. 

80.    Ky.—  -Haddix  v.  Walter,   266   S. 
W.  631,  205  Ky.  740. 


Failure  to  take  down  testimony  in 
writing  and  file  it  was  held  not  to 
render  decree  void. — Malone  v. 
Meres,  109  So.  677.  91  Fla.  709. 

61.  Colo. — Hunt  v.  Hunt,  264  P.  662, 
83    Colo.    282,    error   dismissed    49 
S.Ct.    186,    278   U.S.    583,    73    L.Ed. 
519. 

B.C.— Hodge  v.  Huff,  140  F.2d  686,  78 
U.S.App.D.C.  329,  certiorari  denied 
64  S.Ct  946,  322  U.S.  733,  88  L. 
Ed.  1567. 

Perjury  as  ground  for: 
.Collateral  attack  see  infra  S  434. 
Equitable  relief  against  judgment 

see  infra  §  374. 
Opening    and    vacating    Judgment 

see  infra  §  270. 

62.  Cal. — Easterly  v.  Cook,   85  P.2d 
164,  140  CaLApp.  115. 

Ga. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Holton 
v.  Lankford,  6  S.E.2d  304,  310, 
189  Ga.  506. 

Md. — Carozza  v.  Brannan,  46  A.2d 
198. 

N.T.— Fuller  v.  Galeota,  51  N.T.S.2d 
101,  268  App.Div.  949— Donate  v. 
Granite  State  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  288 
N.T.S.  639,  248  App.Div.  736— 
Flagg  v.  Moses,  225  N.T.S.  508, 
222  App.Div.  762,  motion  denied 
226  N.T.S.  392,  222  App.Div.  821, 
and  affirmed  162  N.E.  504,  248  N. 
T.  509— Abell  v.  Hunter,  207  N.T. 
S.  203,  211  App.Div.  467,  affirmed 
148  N.E.  766,  240  N.T.  702— Shaul 
v.  Fidelity  &  Deposit  Co.  of  Mary- 
tend.  227  N.T.S.  16-3,  131  Misc.  401, 
affirmed  230  N.T.S.  910,  224  App. 
Div.  773. 

Pa.— Massachusetts  Bonding  &  In- 
surance Co.  v.  Johnston  &  Harder, 
16  A.2d  444,  840  Pa.  253. 

S.D. — Central  Loan  &  Investment 
Co.  v.  Loiseau,  239  N.W.  487,  59 
S.D.  255. 

Utah. — Beneficial  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Mason,  160  P.2d  734— Mason  v. 
Mason,  160  P.2d  730 — Evans  v. 
Shand,  280  <P.  239,  74  Utah  451. 

Vt. — Town  of  Randolph  v.  Lyon,  175 
A.  1,  106  Vt  495. 

33  C.J,  p  1137  note  37—64  C.J.  p  1223 
note  32. 

Finding*  as  equivalent  to  verdict 
.For  the  purposes  of  judgment,  the 

trial    court's   findings   of   fact   have 

the   effect   of   a   "verdict"-— Watson 

105 


v.   Missouri-Kansas-Texas  R.   Co.   of 
Texas,  Tex.Civ.App.,  173  S.W.2d  357. 

When  finding's   unnecessary 

Findings"  of  fact  by  the  court  have 
been  held  unnecessary  where  there 
is  a  verdict. — Dye  v.  Russell,  40  N. 
W.  416,  24  Neb.  829. 

Conclusions  inconsistent 

If  findings  support  judgment,  in- 
consistencies between  conclusions 
are  immaterial  and  do  not  vitiate 
judgment. — Klein  Norton  Co.  v.  Co- 
hen, 290  P.  61*,  107  CoLApp.  325. 

63.  U.S. — Connally  v.  Louisville  & 
N.  R.  Co.,  C.C.A.Miss.,  297  F.  180. 

Ala.— Scott  v.  Parker,  113  So.  495, 
216  Ala.  321. 

Cal.— Vitimtn  Milling  Corporation  v. 
Superior  Court  In  and  for  Los  An- 
geles County,  33  P.2d  1016,  1  CaL 
2d  116. 

Ga.— Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Holton  v. 
Lankford,  6  S.R2d  304,  310,  189 
Ga.  506. 

Mo. — Newdiger  v.  Kansas  City,  App., 
106  S.W.2d  51,  affirmed  114  S.W.2d 
1047,  342  Mo.  252. 

N.C.— Miller  v.  Dunn,  124  S.E.  746, 
188  N.C.  397. 

Tex. — American  Nat  Ins.  Co,  T. 
Points,  Civ.App.,  81  S.W.2d  762, 
error  dismissed — Dallas  Coffin  Co. 
v.  Teager,  Civ.App.,  19  S.W.2d  156, 
error  dismissed — Cisco  Building 
&  Loan  Ass'n  v.  Mason,  Civ.App., 
12  «S.W.2d  1106— TTair  v.  Wichita 
Valley  Ry.  Co..  Civ.App.,  274  S.W. 
247— Fort  Worth  &  D.  C.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Lowrie,  CivJLpp^  271  S.W.  268. 

Va.— Scheckler  v.  Andersom,  29  an 
2d  867,  182  Va,  701. 

35  C.J.  p  U37  note  38. 

Indispensable  step 

Where  there  was  no  waiver  of  ft 
trial  by  jury,  its  verdict  was  an  in- 
dispensable step  in  the  proceedings, 
and  trial  court  was  without  powqr 
to  enter  a  final  judgment  in,  absence 
thereof.— Heath  v.  Moers,  199  S.E. 
519,  171  Va,  397. 

Approval  of  verdict 

The  trial  court  must  .approve  a 
verdict  before  a  judgment  can  be 
based  on  it — Fraka*  v.  Travelers 
Mut  Casualty  Co.,.  84  P.24  871,  148 
Kan.  637. 


§  45 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


make  findings  as  to  certain  issues,  judgment  should 
be  rendered  on  the  basis  of  findings  of  the  jury  ac- 
cepted by  the  court,  plus  findings  of  fact  made  by 
the  court  on  other  issues  and  conclusions  of  law 
based  on  all  such  findings.64 

A  valid  judgment  must  rest  on  findings,  express 
or  implied,  on  all  material  issues.65  The  findings 
of  the  court66  or  the  findings  or  verdict  of  the  ju- 
ry67 must  be  of  a  character  sufficient  to  support  the 


judgment  rendered,  and  ordinarily  the  latter  may 
not  be  aided  by  intendment  or  reference  to  extrinsic 
facts.68  Although  it  has  been  held  that  it  must  ap- 
pear that  there  was  a  direct  and  affirmative  finding 
on  every  issue  of  fact  essential  to  recovery,6^  it 
has  also  been  held  that,  where  the  court  fails  to 
make  formal  findings,  every  finding  justified  by  the 
record  and  necessary  to  support  the  judgment  will 
be  implied,70  and  that  a  general  judgment  is  deemed 


64.  Cal. — Alphonzo  B.  Bell  Corp.  v 
Listle,  App.,   169   P.2d  462. 

Matter  Juriidictional 

Findings  on  issues  other  than 
those  specifically  found  by  jury  in 
answer  to  special  interrogatories  be- 
ing necessary  to  support  Judgment, 
matter  held  jurisdiction^,  findings 
not  having  been  waived. — Central 
Loan  &  Investment  Co.  v.  Loiseau, 
239  -N.W.  487,  59  S.D.  265. 

65,  Mont. — Blaser  v.  Clinton  Irriga 
tion  Dist,  53  OP.2d  1141,  100  Mont 
459. 

N.C.— Bborn  v.  Ellis,  85  S.B.2d  -288 

225  N.C.  386. 

Tex. — English     v.     Blackwood,     Civ. 
App.,    128    S.W.2d   895,    error    dis- 
missed Judgment  correct 
Wis.— Witt  v.  Wonser,  219  N.W.  844, 
195  Wis.  593. 

Omnibus  Hading  that  material  al- 
legations in  named  paragraphs  of 
defendant's  affirmative  defense  were 
not  proved  was  insufficient  to  sup- 
port Judgment— Gordon  v.  Beck,  239 
P.  309.  196  Cal.  768. 
General  verdict 

(1)  Judgment  cannot  be  supported 
by  jury's  determination  on  isolated 
issues  in  answer  to  special  interrog- 
atories   without    general    verdict — 
Central   Loan   &   Investment  Co.   v. 
Loiseau,   239   N.W.   487,   59   &D.   255. 

(2)  In  action  on  disability  clause 
of  group  life  and  health  policy,  ver- 
dict for  insured  for  total  amount  of 
his  certificate  held  "general  verdict" 
which  could   serve  as   proper  basis 
for    judgment — Eauitable    Life    As- 
sur.  Soc.  of  U.  S.  v.  Goble,  72  S,W^2d 
35,  254  Ky.  614. 

Special  verdict 

Where  special  verdict  contains  no 
finding  on  vital  issue  of  fact  con- 
cerning which  testimony  is  conflict- 
ing, it  will  not  support  judgment  for 
plaintiff.— Hintz  v.  Jackson,  198  N. 
W.  475,  51  N.D.  13. 

Verdict  requiring  entry  of  Judgment 
Although  jury  need  not  in  all  cas- 
es answer  all  issues  presented,  be- 
fore judgment  can  be  entered  for 
either  party,  the  verdict  must  be 
such  as  to  require  the  entry  of  a 
judgment. — Bowen  Motor  Coaches  v. 
Young,  Tex.Civ.App.,  138  S.W.2d  145. 
When  there  wag  no  finding  on 
certain  evidence,  judgment  could  not 
be  held  to  have  been  based  thereon. 


— Willard  v.  Glenn-Colusa  Irr.  Dist     N.H. — Holman  v.  Kingsbury,  4  N.H. 
258  P.  959,  201  Cal.  726.  104. 


Judgment  on  merit* 

Fact  findings   are  made  by  court 
only   on  issues   raised  by  pleadings 
and  evidence  produced  on  trial,  and 
Judgments-   on    merits    are    entera 
only  on  findings  so  made,  rulings  on 
demurrer  when  pleading  over  is  not 
served,   or  motion  for  Judgment  on 
pleadings,  agreed  case,  or  consent  of 
party    against   whom    it   runs.r—An- 
gers    v.   Sabatinelli,    1   N.W.2d    765 
239  Wis.  S  64 — Luebke  v.  City  of  Wi 
tertown,  284  N.W.  519,  230  Wis.  512. 

66-    CaL — Winstanley   v.    Ackerman, 

294    P.   449,    110   CaLApp.   641. 
Mo. — Buschow    Lumber   Co.    v.    Un- 
ion Pac.  H.  Co.,  276  S.W.  409,  220 
Mo.App.  743— Kentling  &  Kentling 
v.  Magers,  App.,   256  S.W.  528. 
N.J.— Motor  Finance   Corporation  v. 
Tar  Asphalt  Trucking  Co.,  21  A.2d 
350,  127  N.J.Law  60. 
N.Y.— Sutphen  v.  Morey,   212  N.Y.S. 

43,  214  App.Div.  164. 
Or.— State  v.  Warren  Const  Co.,  276 

P.  260,  129  Or.  58. 
83  C.J.  p  964  note  60. 
Finding-  supported  by  inadmissible 

evidence 

Judgment  based  on  finding  sup- 
ported by  inadmissible  evidence  is 
erroneous. — Donnell  v.  Baker,  Tex. 
Civ. App.,  15  S.W.2d  120,  error  dis- 
missed., 

Judgment  held  sufficiently  supported 

(1)  Generally. 

Cal. — Arena  v.  Bank  of  Italy,  228  P. 

441,  194  Cal.  195. 
Vt-^Campbell  v.  Ryan,  22  A.2d  502, 

112  Vt  238—<3ooley  v.  Hatch,  124 

A,  589,  97  Vt  484. 

(2)  It  has  been  held  that  a  decree, 
finding   that   certain   of   the   parties 
to  the  suit  are  owners  of  the  real 
estate  in  controversy,  fixing  the  in- 
.eres't   of   each,   and   decreeing   par- 
:ition   accordingly,    is  not   defective 

because  without  general  findings  of 
''act. — Rackemann  v.  Tllton,  86  N.E. 
68,  236  111.  49. 

67.    Colo. — -fflStna  Casualty  &  Surety 

Co.  v.  Finance  Service  Corporation, 

2-26  P.  153,  75  Colo.  432. 
HL— -War-field   v.    Patterson,   135   IlL 

App.  307,  appeal  dismissed  84  N. 

E.  176,  233  III.  147. 

106 


Tex. — Houston,  E.  &  W.  T.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Browder,  Com. App.,  283  S.W. 
154 — Union  Indemnity  Co.  v.  Col- 
orado Nat.  Bank,  Civ.App.,  38  S.W. 
2d  257— -Ratcliffe  v.  Ormsby,  Civ. 
App.,  298  S.W.  930,  error  denied 
Ormsby  v.  Ratcliffe,  1  S.W.2d  1084, 
117  Tex.  242— Jaco  v.  W.  A.  Nash 
Co.,  Civ.App.,  269  S.W.  1089. 

Wash. — Bino  v.  Veenhuizen,  250  P. 
450,  141  Wash.  18,  49  A.L.R.  1297. 

Advisory  verdict 

Jury  verdict,  effect  of  which  is  ad- 
visory only,  will  not  support  Judg- 
ment—Central Loan  &  Investment, 
Co.  v.  Loiseau,  239  N.W.  487,  59 
S.D.  255. 

Support  by  evidence     • 

Unless  Jury's  finding  is  supported 
by  evidence,  judgment  should  not  be 
entered  thereon. — Houston  &  T.  C. 
R.  Co.  v.  Pruitt,  Tex.Civ.App.,  293 
S.W.  627. 

Judgment    sufficiently   supported   1)7 

Jury  findings  or  verdict 
Cal. — Fairbanks     v.     Macready,     268 

P.  947,  92  Cal.App.  156~<Jadwalla- 

der  v.  Martin,  257  P.  638,  83  Cal. 

App.  666. 

Okl.— Houser  v.  Ivey,  249  P.  141.  119 

Okl.  42. 
Tex.— Martin   v.   Hays,   Civ.App.,    86 

S.W.2d    796,    error   refused. 

68.  Ala.— Capital  Cab  Co.  v.   Mont- 
gomery Fair,  104   So.  891,   20  Ala. 
App.     648,    certiorari     denied     Ex 
parte  Capital  Cab  Co.,  104  So.  892, 
213  Ala.  429. 

69.  Ala.— Capital  Cab  Co.  v.  Mont- 
gomery Fair,  104   So.  891,  20  Ala. 
App.     648,     certiorari     denied    Ex 
parte  Capital  Cab  Co.,  104  So.  892. 
213  Ala.  429. 

Conclusion  of  ultimate  fact 

A  statement  in  judgment  or  de* 
cree,  entered  after  hearing  conflict- 

ng  evidence,  may  be  regarded  as 
conclusion  of  ultimate  fact  or  at 

east  of  mixed  law  and  fact,  even 
though  same  allegation  in  pleading 
might  be  construed  as  conclusion  of 

aw. — Label  v.  Sullivan,  165   S.W.2d 

39,  350  Mo.  286. 

0.    Mont — Blaser    v.    Clinton    Irr. 
Dist.  53  P.2d  1141.  100  Mont  459. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§46 


to  include  a  special  finding  on  all  issues  necessary 
to  sustain  k.7*  While  a  valid  judgment  may  not 
be  based  on  findings  or  verdict  as  to  an  immaterial 
issue,72  where  the  judgment  otherwise  finds  suffi- 
cient support,  the  fact  that  some  of  the  findings  are 
immaterial  or  without  the  issues  will  not  invalidate 
it.73  The  failure  to  find  as  to  a  particular  issue  of 
fact  is  immaterial  where  the  fact  is  admitted.74 

A  judgment  rendered  without  either  verdict  or 
findings  is  irregular  and  erroneous,7^  and  has  been 
held  premature  and  void  ;76  but  the  more  generally 
accepted  view  is  that  such  a  judgment  is  merely 
voidable  and  is  not  absolutely  void77  and  that  fail- 
ure of  verdict  and  findings  to  support  the  judgment 


is  a  defect  subject  to  waiver.78  Since  the  power 
to  decide  includes  the  power  to  decide  erroneously, 
a  judgment  is  not  void  because  of  an  erroneous 
finding  of  fact,79  especially  where  such  error  was 
inadvertent  and  harmless  and  not  determinative  of 
the  main  issue.80 

Decision  in  writing  as  basis  for  judgment.  Ordi- 
narily a  judgment  should  be  entered  on  the  basis 
of  a  decision  in  writing,81  and  may  not  be  predicat- 
ed merely  on  the  opinion,82  oral  direction,83  or 
unsigned  memorandum84  of  the  court,  or  on  an  en- 
try in  the  minutes  of  the  clerk;85  but  absence  of 
a  decision  in  due  form  has  been  held  not  fatal  to  a 
judgment.86 


E.  CONFORMITY  TO  PRIOR  PROCEEDINGS 


§  46.    Conformity  to  Process 

A  Judgment  should  conform  to  the  process  served,  as, 
for  example,  with  respect  to  parties  and  'the  amount  of 
the  recovery. 

A  judgment  should  conform  to  the  writ  or  proc- 
ess served.87  Accordingly,  where  process  is  di- 
rected to,  and  served  on,  a  party  as  an  individual, 


judgment  may  not  be  rendered  against  him  in  a 
representative  capacity,  and  vice  versa.88  Likewise, 
process  addressed  to,  and  served  on,  an  individual 
is  not  sufficient  on  which  to  base  a  judgment  against 
•a  corporation.89 

The  amount  of  recovery  must  conform  to,  and  is 


71.  Mass. — In  re  Rothwell's  Estate, 
186   N.E.   662.   28-3   Mass.   563— An- 
derson v.  Bean,  172  N.E.   647,  272 
Mass.  432,  72  A.L.R.  959. 

Okl.— Riddle  v.  Brann,  131  P.2d  999, 
191    Okl.   596— Stan er  v.   McGrath, 
51  P.2d  795,  174  Okl.  454. 
Delay  in  instituting-  stilt 

A  judgment  for  plaintiff  in  action 
for  accounting  and  to  recover  her 
one-sixth  interest  in  proceeds  of 
sale  of  mining  property  was  a  find- 
ing against  her  alleged  unneces- 
sary delay  to  instituting  action. — 
Scott  v.  Symons,  216  P.  604,  191  Cal. 
441. 

72.  Fla.— Merchants       &      Bankers 
Guaranty   Co.    v.   Downs,    175    So. 
704,  128  Fla.  7*7. 

N.J. — Motor   Finance  Corporation  v. 

Tor  Asphalt  Trucking  Co..  21  A.2d 

350,  127  N.J.Law  60. 
N.T. — Miller  v.  Union  Indemnity  Co., 

204  N.TjS.  7<30,  209  App.Div.  455. 
Tex.— Texas  &  N.  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Shaw, 

Civ.App.,  284  S.W.  600. 

73.  Mont— Huffine    v.    Lincoln,    287 
P.  629,  87  Mont  267. 

74.  N.C. — Seawell   v.    Person,    76   S. 
E.  2,  160  N.C.  291. 

33  C.J.  p  1138  note  42. 

75.  Cal.— Easterly  v.  Cook,   35   P.2d 
164,  140  Cal.App.  115. 

Ga. — Corpus    Juris    cited   In   Holton 

v.    Lankford,    6    S.E.2d    304,    310, 

189  Ga.  506. 
Tex. — American  Rio  Grande  Land  & 

Irrigation    <Jo.    v.    Bellman,    Civ. 

App.,  272  S.W.  550. 


Vt— Town    of    Randolph    v.     Lyon, 

175  A.  1,  106  Vt.  495. 
33   C.J.   p   964   note   57,   p  1138   note 

39,  p  1170  note  37. 

76.  Cal. — Casner  v.  Daily  News  Co., 
106   P.2d  201,  16  Cal.2d  410— Viti- 
min  Milling  Corporation  v.  Superi- 
or Court  in  and  for  Los  Angeles 
County,     SiS    P.2d    1016,    1    Cal.2d 
116— In   re   Dodds'   Estate,    126    P. 
2d  150,  52  Cal.App.2d  287— Easter- 
ly v.   Cook,   35    P.2d   164,   140  Cal. 
App.  115. 

77.  N.C.— Ellis  V.  Ellis,   130   S.B.   7, 
190  N.C.  418. 

Okl.— Mid-Continent    Pipe    Line.  Co. 

v.  Seminole  County  Excise  Board, 

146  P.2d  996,  194  Okl.  40. 
Or. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Glickman 

v.  Solomon,  12  P.2d  1017,  1018,  140 

Or.  358,  followed  12  P.2d  1018,  140 

Or.    364,    overruling    Frederick    & 

Nelson  v.  Bar£,  134  P.  318,  66  Or. 

259,   and  Clackamas   Southern  Ry. 

Co.  v.  Vick,  144  P.  84,  72  Or.  580. 
Wyo. — Garber  v.  Spray,   164   P.  840, 

25  Wyo.  52. 
33  C.J.  p  1138  note  40,  p  1170  note 

38. 

78.  N.Y. — Corn    Exchange    Bank   v. 
Blye,    28   N.E.    805,    119    N.T.    414. 

79.  U.S.— Jack  y.  Hood,   CXLA.OkL. 
39  F.2d  594. 

Findings  contrary  to  evidence 
have  been  held  not  to  render  the 
judgment  void. — In  re  Gardiner's  Es- 
tate, 114  P.2d  645,  45  CaLApp.2d 
559. 
80-  U.S.— Jack  v.  Hood,  COA-Okl., 

39  F.2d  594. 

107 


81.  S.D. — Sinclair    Refining    Co.    v. 
Larson,  214  N.W.  842,  51  SJX  443. 

82.  N.Y. — Reynolds    v.    -3Btna    Life 
Ins.  Co.,  39  N.T.S.  885,  6  App.Div. 
254. 

Utah. — Wasatch  Oil   Refining   Co.  V. 

Wade,  63  P.2d  1070,   92  Utah  50. 
Wash. — Adams  v.  Ernst,  95  P.2d  799, 

1  Wash.2d  254. 
33  C.J.  p  1137  note  87  [b],   [c], 

83.  N.T.— Shaul   v.    Fidelity   &   De- 
posit Co.   of  Maryland,  227  N.T.S. 
163,  131  Misc.  401,  affirmed  230  N. 
T.S.  910,  224  App.Div.  773. 

84.  N.T.— Corley  v.   Spitzer,   255  N. 
T.S.   601,   235   AppJMv.   703— Torge 
V.  Loomis,  21-3  N.T.S.  924;  215  App. 
Div.   862— Woolf  v.   Woolf,   215  N. 
T.S.  89,  126  Misc.  868. 

85.  N.T.— Electric  Boat  Co.  v.  How- 
ey,  89  N.T.S.  210,  96  App.Div.  410. 

33  OX  p  1137  note  37  [b]. 

86.  N.T. — Lyon  v.  Water  Com'rs  of 
City    of    Binghamton,    232    N.T.S. 
26,  224  App.Div.  568. 

87.  U.S. — Hughes  v.  Union  Ins.  Co., 
Md.,   8  Wheat.  294,   5  L.Ed    620. 

33  C.J.  p  1138  note  44. 

88.  Fla. — Fllmi  v.   Lisenby,  1-36  So. 
599,  102  Fla.  777. 

Divestiture  of  title 


Where,  in  trespass  to  try  title, 
defendant  was  served  as  individual 
only,  judgment  divested  him  of  title 
individually,  but  not  as  trustee. — 
Blair  v.  Carney,  Tex.Civ.App.,  44  S. 
W.2d  1031,  error  refused. 
89.  La. — Norwich  Union  Indemnity 

Co.  v.   Judlln  &  WMtmire,   7  La. 

App.  879. 


§47 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.& 


limited  by,  the  writ9*  Accordingly,  where  the 
judgment  is  by  default,  the  amount  of  recovery  is 
limited  to  the  sum  specified  in  the  summons  or  in- 
dorsed  on  the  copy  served,91  and  a  judgment  for 
a  greater  sum  has  b^en  held  absolutely  void,92 
although  such  judgment  has  also  been  held  to  be 
regular  and  valid  if  it  is  within  the  sum  demanded 
in  the  declaration.93  Where,  however,  defendant 
appears  and  answers,  the  judgment  is  not  limited  to 
the  amount  indorsed  on  the  summons.94 

§  47.    Conformity  to  Pleadings  and  Proofs 

The  rules  respecting  conformity  of  judgments  to 
the  pleadings  and  proofs,  and  the  applications  of 
such  rules,  are  considered  in  detail  infra  §§  48-54. 


Examine  Pocket  Parts  for  later  cases. 


§48. 


General  Rules 


A  Judgment  should  be  supported  by  both  the  plead- 
ings and  the  proofs,  although  in  this  connection  substan- 
tial accordance  is  sufficient,  and  the  pleadings  are  to 
be  taken  as  a  whole. 

A  court  may  not  properly  put  on  its  record  a 
judgment  which  is  not  a  proper  sequence  to  the 
pleadings,95  at  least  without  the  consent  of  all  per- 
sons affected.96  It  is  a  general  rule  that  a  recovery 
must  be  had,  if  at  all,  on  the  facts  alleged  in  the 
pleadings;  the  judgment  must  conform  to,  and  be 
supported  by,  the  pleadings  in  the  case.97  It  is 
likewise  a  general  rule  that  facts  proved  but  not 


Party  against  whom  process  may  is- 
sue In  actions  against  corporations 
see  Corporations  §  1308. 

90.  Ala,— Carroll   y.    Milner,    9    So. 
221,  93  Ala.  301. 

33  C.J.  p  1138  note  45. 

91.  N.J.— Rips   v.    Levitan,    130    A. 
882,    3  N.J.Misc.   1166,   motion  de- 
nied  132   A.    926,   4   N.J.Hisc.   314. 

33  C.J.  p  1139   note   46. 

92.  Kan.— -Basset  v.  Mitchell,  19  P. 
671. 

33  C.J.  p  1139  note  47. 

93.  111.— Plato  v.  Turrill,  18  HI.  273. 
33  C.J.  p  11-39  note  48. 

94.  N.Y.— Valencia    Realty    Co.    v. 
Seely,  192  A.  717,  15  N.J.Misc.  520. 

33  C.J.  p  1139  note  49. 

95.  Ind. — Indianapolis    Real    Estate 
Board  v.  Willson,  187  N.E.  400,  98 
Ind.App.  72. 

Mo. — Owens  v.   McCleary.   App.,    273 

S.W.  145. 
Tex. — Automobile     Finance     Co.     v. 

Bryan,    Civ. App.,    <3    S.WV2d    835 — 

•Smith  v.  Scott,  Civ.App.,  261  S.W. 

1089. 
Va.— Dulaney  v.  Smith,  149  S.E.  441, 

153  Va.  118. 
3i3  C.J.  p  1139  note  51. 

A  court  of  record,  in  order  to  act, 
must  find  a  basis  in  the  pleading 
for  its  action. — Green  v.  Duncan, 
Tex.Civ.App.,  1-34  S.W.2d  744. 

96.  TJ.-S, — Sylvan  Beach  v.  Koch,  C. 
C.A.MO.,  140  F.2d  852. 

S3  C.J.  p  11*39  note  51  [a}. 
Issues  broadened  by  consent  see  in- 
fra §  50, 

The  rule  cannot  be  circumvented 
by  allowing  amendments  to  the 
pleadings  to  change  a  cause  of  ac- 
tion after  judgment,  or  by  giving 
notice  of  the  entry  of  judgment,  or 
by  entertaining  motions  to  vacate 
a  judgment  after  it  has  been  enter- 
ed.— Sylvan  Beach  v.  Koch,  supra. 

97.  US.— Mutual    Life    Ins.    Co.    v. 
Bingley,  Wash.,  100  F.  408,  40  C. 
C.A.   459,   49  UR.A.   132,  reversed 
.on  other  grounds  22  S.Ct  937,  184 


U.S.  695,  46  L.Bd.  763— U.  S.  v. 
E.  H.  Bailey  &  Co.,  32  C.C.P.A. 
Customs  89. 

Ala. — Corpus  Juris  cited  In  Chand- 
ler v.  IPrice,  15  So.2d  462,  463,  244 
Ala,  667. 

Ariz.— White  v.  Hamilton,  299  P.  124, 

38  Ariz.  256. 

Cal.— Paulin  v.  Paulin,  102  P.2d  809, 

39  Cal. App. 2 d  180. 

Ga.— Westberry  v.  Reddish,  172  S.B. 
10,  178  Ga.  116 — Davis  v.  Mowers, 
114  S.B.  200,  154  Ga.  260. 

111.— -Continental  111.  Nat  Bank  & 
Trust  Co.  of  "Chicago  v.  Sever,  65 
N.E.2d  385,  393  111.  81. 

Ind. — Earl  Park  -State  Bank  v.  Low- 
mon,  161  N.B.  675,  92  Ind.App.  25 
— Chicago,  T.  H.  &  S.  B.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Collins/  142  N.B.  634,  82  Ind. 
App.  41,  modified  on  other  grounds 
143  N.E.  712,  82  Ind.App.  41. 

&y. — Cawood  v.  Cawood's  Adm'x, 
147  S.W.2d  88,  285  Ky.  201— City 
of  Owingsville  v.  Ulery,  86  S.W. 
2d  706,  260  Ky.  792— Ratliff  v.  Sin- 
berg,  79  S.W.2d  717,  258  Ky.  203 
— Corpus  Jails  cited  la  Barnett 
v.  Robinson,  79  S.W.2d  699,  700, 
258  Ky.  225— McGill  v.  Dunaway, 
71  S.W.2d  4-35,  254  Ky.  234— Wak- 
enva  Coal  Co.  v.  Johnson,  28  S.W. 
2d  737,  234  Ky.  558. 

Mass. — Coughlin  v.  Coughlin,  45  N. 
B.2d  '388,  312  Mass.  452— Geffien  v. 
Paletz,  43  N.B.2d  133,  312  Mass. 
48. 

Miss. — Holmes  v.  Ford,  176  So.  524, 
179  Miss.  673— Newell  Contracting 
•Co.  v.  Flynt,  161  So.  298,  172  Miss. 
719,  motion  overruled  161  So.  743, 
172  Miss.  719. 

Mo. — Grafeman  Dairy  Co.  v.  North- 
western Bank,  288  'S.W.  359,  315 
Mo.  849— McCaskey  v.  Duffley,  78 
S.W.2d  141,  229  MoApp.  289,  trans- 
ferred; see  73  S.W.2d  188,  1335  Mo. 
•38-3 — Texas  Empire  (Pipe  Line  Co. 
v.  Stewart,  App.,  35  S.W.2d  627, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  55  S. 
W.2d  283,  331  Mo.  525— Lewis  v. 
Scholl,  Appw  244  S.W.  90. 

Mont— Alley   v.    Peeso,    290   P.  ^238, 

108 


88  Mont  1— Welch  v.  All  Persons, 
Etc.,  254  P.  179,  78  Mont  370. 

Neb. — Fidelity  Finance  Co.  v.  West- 
fall,  254  N.W.  710,  127  Neb.  56— 
Domann  v.  Domann,  208  N.W.  669, 
114  Neb.  563. 

0kl.— Corpus  Juris  cited  in.  Okla- 
homa City  v.  Robinson,  65  P.2d 
531,  533,  179  Okl.  309. 

Pa. — Bowman  v.  Gum,  Inc.,  184  A. 
258,  321  (Pa.  516. 

Tenn.— Fidelity-Phenix  Fire  Iris.  Co. 
of  New  York  v.  Jackson,  181  S. 
W.2d  625,  181  Tenn.  453— Phifer  v. 
Mutual  Ben.  Health  &  Accident 
AssM,  148  S.W.2d  17,  24  Tenn.App. 
600. 

Tex. — Wilke  v.  Finn,  Com. App.,  39 
S.W.2d  836— Nalle  v.  Harrell,  12 
S.W.2d  550,  118  Tex.  149— Queen 
Ins.  Co.  v.  Galveston,  H.  &  S.  A. 
Ry.  Co.,  Com. App.,  296  -S.W.  484, 
reheard  «  B.W.2d  419—JPhelps  v. 
Connellee,  Com.App,.,  285  S.W.  1047 
— Johnson  Aircrafts  v.  Wilborn, 
Civ.App.,  190  S.W.2d  426-JClty  of 
Beaumont  v.  Calder  Place  Corpo- 
ration, 180  S.W.2d  189,  reversed  on 
other  grounds  183  S.W.2d  713,  143 
Tex.  244 — -Doughty  v.  DeFee,  Civ. 
App.,  152  S«W.2d  404,  error  refused 
— Rudolph  v.  Smith,  Civ.App.,  148 
S.W.2d  225— Butler  v.  Price,  Civ. 
App.,  138  S.W.2d  301— De  Walt  v. 
Universal  Film  Exchanges,  Civ. 
App.,  132  S.W.2d  421,  error  dis- 
missed, judgment  correct — Rob- 
bins  v.  Robtoins,  Civ.App.,  125  S.W. 
2d  666 — Fort  Worth  &  Denver  City 
Ry.  Co.  v.  Reid,  Civ.App.,  115  S.W. 
2d  1156— City  of  Floydada  vt  Gil- 
liam,  Civ.App.,  Ill  S.W.2d  761 — 
Jones-O'Brien,  Inc.,  v.  Lloyd,  Civ. 
App.,  106  'S.W.2d  1069,  error  dis- 
missed— Hartford  Accident  &  In- 
demnity Co.  v.  Moore,  Civ.App., 
102  S.W.2d  441,  error  refused — 
Houston  Gas  &  Fuel  Co.  v.  Sprad- 
lin,  Clv.App.,  55  S*.W.2d  1086— 
American  Surety  Co.  of  New  Totfc 
v.  Alamo  Iron  Works,  Civ. App.,  29 
S.W.2d  493,  reversed  on  other 
grounds,  Com. App.,  36  S.W.2d  714 
—House  v.  Rogers.  Civ.App.,  23 


49    C.J.S, 


JUDGMENTS 


§  48 


pleaded  will  not  support  the  judgment,98  and  this  is 
true,  even  though  such  facts  are  found  by  verdict 
or  finding.^  An  affirmative  defense  not  pleaded  is 


dence  adduced,2  in  connection  with  facts  admitted 
by  the  parties  in  the  pleadings  or  otherwise,8  and 
facts  pleaded  but  not  proved  or  admitted  on  the 


unavailable  to  support  the  judgment1  *•  *     •«  •   <  AH       -   .     , . 

**  ju-ugmcuu  ^^  ^  not  support  a  judgment,4  although  in  this 

A  judgment  must  also  be  sustained  by  the  evi-     connection  allegations  not  necessary  to  the  state- 


SW.2d  414,  affirmed,  Com.App., 
Rogers  v.  House,  39  S.W.2d  1111— 
Bray  v.  Bray,  Civ.App.,  1  S.W.2d 
525 — Bitter  v.  Bexar  pounty,  Civ. 
App.,  266  S.W.  224,  reversed  on 
other  grounds.  Com.App.,  11  S.W. 
2d  163 — Stevenson  v.  Baisrow,  Civ. 
App.,  265  S.W.  602— Metting  v. 
Metting,  Civ.App.,  261  S.W.  151. 
modified  on  other  grounds  262  S. 
W.  188— Scott  v.  Lott,  Civ.App., 
247  S.W.  685— Scott  v.  State,  102 
S.W.2d  434,  132  Tex.Cr.  79. 

Utah.— Jeffries  v.  Third  Judicial 
Dist.  Court  of  Salt  Lake  County, 
63  P.2d  242,  90  Utah  525— Stevens 
&  Wallis  v.  Golden  OPorphyry 
Mines  Co.,  18  P.2d  90S,  81  Utah 
414 — People's  Bonded  Trustee  v. 
Wright,  272  P.  200,  72  Utah  587. 

Vt.— Ackerman  v.  Carpenter,  59  A.2d 
922,  113  Vt  77.  • 

W.Va.— George  v.  Male,  153  S.E.  507, 
109  W.Va.  222. 

Wyo. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Urbach 
v.  Urbach,  7-3  F.2d  958,  962,  52 
Wyo.  207,  113  A.L.R.  889. 

13  C.J.  p  798  note  65—19  C.J.  p 
1209  note  20,  p  1240  note  19— 
24  C.J.  p  884  note  44—26  C.J.  p 
570  note  23—33  C.J.  p  144  note  83, 
p  1139  note  52,  p  1141  note  53, 
p  1156  note  58—42  C.J.  p  142  note 
48—47  C.J.  p  430  note  63,  p  1009 
note  87—51  (XJ.  p  360  note  70. 

"Unwarranted  conclusion  of  law 

A  judgment  cannot  be  based  on  a 
pleaded  conclusion  of  law  not  war- 
ranted by  the  facts  pleaded. — Hurst 
v.  Crawford,  Tex.Civ,App.,  216  S.W. 
284. 

Elimination  of  aspect  of  bill 

After  complainant  has  been  forced 
by  demurrer  to  eliminate  aspect  of 
bill,  he  cannot  be  required  to  accept 
decree  under  that  aspect.— Kelly  v. 
Carmichael,  129  So.  81,  221  Ala.  371. 

When,  rule  inapplicable 

"The  rule  that  Judgment  must  be 
in  accordance  with  the  allegations 
contained  in  the  pleadings  does  not 
apply  when  the  evidence,  though 
admitted  to  prove  these  allegations, 
shows  beyond  dispute  that  a  party 
is  responsible  for  a  wrong  or  has  a 
right  which  is  not  alleged,  and 
that  'further  opportunity  to  defend 
would  be  futile  and  a  source  only 
of  delay  and  possible  injustice."— 
Equitable  Life  Assur.  Soc.  of  U.  S. 
v.  Kevitt,  54  N.YJ3.2d  6413,  $50. 
Order  void  on  its  face, 

It  has  been  held  that  an  order 
is  not  void  on  its  face  merely  be- 
cause it  is  not  in  accordance  with 
the  petition  on  which  it  is  based.— 


Mueller  v.   Elba   Oil   Co.,   130   P.2d 
961,  21  Cal.2d  188. 

9&  Conn.— De  Lucia  v.  Valente,  75 
A.  150,  $3  Conn.  107. 

Fla.— Vance  v.  Bliss  Properties,  149 
So.  870,  109  Fla.  388. 

ia— Walsh  v.  Walsh,  24  N.B.2d  341, 
372  111.  254— Rolinitfs  v.  Rolinitis, 
167  N.B.  68,  335  111.  260. 

Mo. — Massey-Harris  Harvester  Co. 
v.  Federal  Reserve  Bank  of  Kan- 
sas City,  48  S.W.2d  158,  226  Mo. 
App.  916. 

Tenn.— Furst  &  Furst  v.  Freels,  9 
Tenn.App.  423— HarreU  v.  Alabama 
Great  Southern  R.,  5  Tenn.App. 
471. 

Tex.— Starr  v.  Ferguson,  166  S.W.2d 
130,  140  Tex  80— Liner  v.  U.  S. 
Torpedo  Co.,  Com.App.,  12  S.W.2d 
552,  reheard  18  S.W.2d  519— Dalton 
v.  Davis,  Com.App.,  1  S.W.2d  571 
—Austin  Bros.  v.  Patton,  Com. 
App.,  294  S.W.  537— Murphy  v. 
Bain,  Civ.App.,  142  S.W.2d  598— 
Texas  Employers'  Ins.  Ass'n  v. 
Jenkins,  Civ.App.,  63  S.W.2d  563 
— American  Surety  Co.  of  New 
York  v.  Alamo  Iron  Works,  Civ. 
App.,  29  &W.2d  493,  reversed  on 
other  grounds,  Com. App.,  36  S.W. 
2d  714 — Baptist  Missionary  and 
Educational  Convention  of  State 
of  Texas  v.  Knox,  Civ.App.,  23 
S.W.2d  781— Globe  Laundry  v.  Mc- 
Lean, Civ.App.,  19  «.W.2d  94— 
National  Rys.  of  Mexico  v.  Escon- 
trias,  Civ.App.,  19  S.W.2d  75— 
Brewton  v.  Butler,  Civ. App.,  12 
S.W.2d  228 — San  Antonio  Machine 
&  Supply  Co.  v.  Allen,  Civ.App., 
268  S.W.  532— Schaff  v.  Perdue, 
Civ.App.,  254  S.W.  151— Griffith  v. 
Gohlman,  Lester  &  Co.,  Civ.App., 
25-3  S.W.  591— Flemtog-Stitzer 
Road  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Boyett,  Civ.App., 
253  S.W.  561. 

W.Va. — Bringardner  v.  Rollins,  185 
S.E.  665,  102  W.Va.  584. 

33  C.J.  p  1141  note  54. 

99.  Conn. — Farnham  v.  Schreiber, 
149  A.  393,  111  Conn.  38. 

N.C. — Simms  v.  (Sampson,  20  SJ3.2d 
554,  221  N.C.  379. 

Tex. — Butler  v.  Price,  Clv^App.,  138 
S.W.2d  301— National  Life  &  Ac- 
cident Ins.  Co.  v.  Casas,  Civ.App., 
36  S.W.2d  523— Dickson  v.  Kilgore 
State  Bank,  CivJVpp.,  244  S.W.  892, 
reversed  on  other  grounds,  Com. 
App.,  257  S.W.  867. 

133  C.J.  p  1141  note  55. 

Mass. — Nashua  River  Paper  Co. 
v.  Lindsay,  136  N.E.  358,  242  Mass. 
206. 
33  C.J.  p  1144  note  75. 

109 


"When  reoonventloiL&l  demand  unnec- 
essary 

Where  a  court  is  authorized  to 
grant  the  relief  prayed  for  either 
absolutely  or  on  a  condition,  the 
granting  of  the  relief  only  on  con- 
dition is  a  mere  refusal  to  grant 
plaintiff  the  full  measure  of  relief 
prayed  for,  and  no  reconventional 
demand  on  the  part  of  defendant  is 
needed  to  authorize  such  judgment. 
— Francez  v.  Francez,  94  So.  203, 
152  La.  666. 

2.  Colo. — -Minchew  v.  West,   241  P. 
541,  78  Colo.  254. 

111. — Brock  v.  Pomeroy,  27  NJE.2d 
56,  305  ULApp.  127— Pley  v.  Lav- 
ette,  167  IlXApp.  494. 
La.— Thompson  v.  State  Assur.  Co., 
Limited,  of  Liverpool,  England, 
107  So.  489, 160  La.  683. 
N.T.— Claris  v.  Richards,  183  NJBL 
904,  260  N.Y.  419— Antonacchio  V. 
Consolidated  Foreign  Exchange 
Corporation,  197  N.T.-S.  150,  203 
App.Div.  621. 

S.C.— Blease  v.  Charleston  &  W.  C. 
Ry.  Co.,  144  S.E.  233,  146  S.C.  496. 
Tex.— City  of  Beaumont  v.  Calder 
Place  Corporation.  Civ.App.,  180 
S«W.2d  189,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  183  S.W.2d  713,  143  Tex. 
244 — Riggle  v.  Automobile  Finance 
Co.,  Civ.App.,  276  S.W.  439— Ben- 
son v.  Adams,  Civ.App.,  274  S.W. 
210,  reversed  on  other  grounds, 
Cozn.App.,  285  S.W.  818— R.  B. 
George  Machinery  Co.  v.  Spear- 
man, Civ.App.,  273  S.W.  640. 
Wyo. — Finance  Corporation  of  Wyo- 
ming v.  Commercial  Credit  Co.,  283 
P.  1100,  41  Wyo.  198. 
13  C.J.  p  798  note  65—19  C.J.  p  1210 
note  21,  p  1240  note  20—24  C.J.  p 
885  note  45—26  C.J.  p  570  note  24 
—33  C.J.  p  1141  note  57—47  C.J. 
p  430  note  64. 
Terms  of  unambiguous  contract 

Judgment  on  an  unambiguous 
written  contract  should  be  rendered 
according  to  its  terms,  although  evi- 
dence is  admitted  to  explain,  add  to, 
and  vary  its  meaning. — Cease  v.  De 
Hek,  253  P.  232,  122  Kan.  699. 

3.  N.T. — J.    D.    L.     Corporation    v. 
Bruckman,    11    N.T.S.2d    7'41,    in 
Misc.  3. 

Tex.— Baker  v.  Rose,  CivJV.pp.,  179 
S.W.2d  339,  modified  on  other 
grounds  183  &W.2d  438,  143  Tex. 
438. 

33  C.J.  p  1142  note  58.  . 

4.  £y<— Wunderlich  v.  Ecott,  46  S. 
W.2d  -753,  242  Ely.  481. 

La.— Pitre  v.  Guidry,  Ajpp.,  147  So, 
767. 


§  48 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


ment  of  a  cause  of  action  and  constituting  mere 
surplusage  need  not  be  proved,  it  being  sufficient 
that  the  judgment  is  supported  by  proof  of  the 
essential  allegations.*  In  other  words,  the  judg- 
ment must  conform  to,  and  be  supported  by,  both 
the  pleadings  and  the  proofs,6  and  be  in  accordance 
with  the  theory  of  the  action  on  which  the  plead- 
ings are  framed  and  the  case  was  tried.7  This  rule 
is  of  universal  application,  and  whether  the  ac- 


tion or  suit  is  at  law,  in  equity,  or  under  the  code, 
the  judgment  must  be  secundum  allegata  et  proba- 
ta.8  Where  the  facts  pleaded  and  proved  by  plain- 
tiff constitute  a  cause  of  action,  a  judgment  may  be 
rendered  in  his  favor,9  notwithstanding  some  of  the 
allegations  made  by  him  are  not  found  to  be  true.10 

A  judgment  inconsistent  with  admitted  or  con- 
clusively established  facts  is  erroneous;11   a  valid 


NVT. — Klepper     v.     Seymour    House  j 

Corporation  of  Ogdensburg,  209  N. 

T.S.    67,    212    App.Div.    277. 
Tex.— New  Amsterdam  Casualty  Co. 

v.    Harrington,    Com.App.,    290    S. 

W.    726-r Sproles    v.    Rosen,    Civ. 

App.,  47  S.W.2d  Ml,  affirmed  84  S. 

W.2d  1001,  126  Tex  51. 
33  C.J.  p  1142  note  59. 
Verified  account 

In  an  action  based  on  an  itemized 
account  the  correctness  of  which  is 
duly  verified,  and  under  a  statute 
providing  that  to  the  absence  of  a 
verified  denial  the  account  should  be 
taken  as  true,  it  *s  not  necessary 
to  the  validity  of  a  judgment  oa 
the  account,  where  the  required  de- 
nial has  not  been  made,  that  other 
evidence  be  introduced.— Cusack  v. 
McMasters,  279  P.  329,  137  Okl.  278. 

5.  Mo.— Campbell  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
B.  Co.,  25  S.W.  936.  121  Mo.  340, 
42  Am.S.R.  530,  25  L.R.A.  175. 

33  C.J.  p  11*44  note  74. 

e.  U.S.— Webster  Bisenlohr,  Inc.,  v. 
Kalodner,  C.C.A.Pa.,  145  P.2d  316, 
certiorari  denied  Kalodner  v.  Web- 
ster Bisenlohr,  Inc.,  65  S.Ct.  1404, 
325  U.-S.  867,  89  L.Ed.  1986— Dry- 
brough  v  Ware,  C.C.A,Ky.,  Ill  F. 
2d  548. 

Cal.— Pacific  Mortg.  Guaranty  Co.  v. 
Rosoff,  67  P.2d  110,  20  Cal.App.2d 
383. 

Conn. — Tress  v.  Pivorotto,  133  A.  85, 
104  Conn.  -389. 

Fla.— Corpus  JtuAs  quoted  in  Edgar 
v.  Bacon,  122  So.  107,  109,  97  Fla. 
679,  followed  in  Wright  v.  Tatari- 
an,  181  "So.  133,  100  Fla.  1366. 

Ga.— Griffeth  v.  Haygood,  161  S.B. 
831,  174  Ga.  22. 

m._Wood  v.  Wood,  64  N.E.2d  385, 
327  111. App.  557 — Kohler  v.  Kohler, 
61  N.B.2d  687,  326  IlLApp.  105— 
First  Trust  Joint  Stock  Land 
Bank  of  Chicago  v.  Cutler,  12  N.E. 
2d  705,  293  Ill.App.  354. 

Iowa.— Bennett  v.  Oreenwalt,  286  N. 
W.  122,  226  Iowa  1113. 

Ky.— Wunderlich  v.  Scott,  46  S.W.2d 
753,  242  Ky.  481— Phelps  v.  Phelps, 
24  S.W.2d  584,  232  Ky.  685— Ad- 
Idas  v.  Pikeville  Supplying  & 
Planing  Mill  Co.,  295  S.W.  440,  220 
Ky.  476 — Lassiter  v.  Farris,  259  S, 
W.  696,  202  Ky.  330. 

3£iss. — Kennington-Saenger  Theatres 
*.  State  ex  reL  Disk  Atty.,  18  So. 


2d  433,   196  Miss.   841.   153  A.L.R. 
883. 

Mo.— Sinclair  Refining  Co.  v.  W]yatt, 
149  'S.W.2d  -358,  347  Mo.  862— Frie- 
del  v.  Bailey,  44  S.W.2d  9,  829  Mo. 
22. 

Mont.— tSecurity      State      Bank      of 
Havre  v.  Mariette,   223  P.  114,  69 
Mont.  536. 
Neb.— Coleman    v.    Beck,    5    N.W.2d 

104,  142  Neb.  13. 

N.J. — Gunther  v.  Morey  Larue  Laun- 
dry Co.,  29  A.2d  713,  129  N.J  Law 
345,  affirmed  33  A.2d  893,  130  N.J. 
Law  557 — Sivak  v.  City  of  New 
Brunswick,  «  A.2d  566,  122  N.J. 
Law  197. 

N.T.— Lifton  v.  Title  Guarantee  & 
Trust  Co.,  31  N.T.S.2d  94,  26-3  App. 
Div.  3 — Electric  Equipment  Cor- 
poration v.  Delco  Appliance  Corpo- 
ration, 297  N.T.S.  498,  252  App.Div. 
1— Dobbins  v.  Pratt  Chuck  Co.,  206 
N.Y.S.  5,  210  App.Div.  278,  revers- 
ed on  other  grounds  151  N.E.  1-46, 
242  N.T.  106— People  v.  Roney,  230 
N.T.S.  583,  132  Misc.  746. 
Pa.— In  re  Miller,  Com.Pl.,  32  Del. 

Co.  566. 

S.C. — Jones  v.  Blbert,  34  'S.E.2d  796, 
206  S.C.  508— Parker  Peanut  Co. 
v.  Felder,  34  S.E.2d  488,  207  S.C. 
€3 — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Little 
v.  Rivers,  185  S.E.  174,  175,  180  S. 
C.  149. 

Tenn.— Dixie  Ohio  Exp.  Co.  v.  But- 
ler, 166  S.W.2d  614,  179  Tenn.  358. 
Tex. — -Page  v.  Key,  Civ.App.,  175  S. 
W.2d  443,  error  refused — Street  v, 
Cunningham,  Civ.App.,  156  S.W.2d 
541-r-Day  v.  Grayson  County  -State 
Bank,  Civ.App.,  ISS  S.W.2d  599— 
Barrett  v.  Commercial  Standard 
Ins.  Co.,  Civ.App.,  145  S.W.2d  -315 
—Southern  Underwriters  v.  Blair, 
Oiv.App.,  144  S.W.2d  641— Guthrie 
v.  Gossett,  Civ.App.,  142  S.W.2d 
410— American  Nat  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Sutton,  Civ.Aipp.,  130  S.W.2d  441 — 
Humble  Oil  &  Refining  Co.  v.  Ow- 
ings,  Civ.App.,  128  S.W.2d  67— 
Railroad  Commission  of  Texas  v. 
Royal  Petroleum  Corporation,  Civ. 
App.,  93  S.W.2d  761,  error  dismiss- 
ed— Penrod  v.  Von  Wolff,  Civ.App., 
90  S.W.2d  859— Barnhart  Mercan- 
tile Co.  v.  Bengel,  Civ.App.,  77 
S.W.2d  295— Perkins  v.  Campbell, 
Civ.App.,  63  S.W.2d  567— Farm  & 
Home  Savings  &  Loan  Ass'n  of 
Missouri  v.  Muhl,  Civ.App.,  37  S 
W.2d  316,  error  refused — Sibley  v, 

no 


Perkins  Bros.  Dry  Goods  Co.,  Civ. 
App.,  12  S.W.2d  601— Hall  v.  Brad- 
ley, Civ.App.,  282  S.W.  874 — Grif- 
fith v.  Gohlman,  Lester  &  Co.,  Civ. 
App.,  253  <S.W.  591. 
Vt.— In  re  Prouty's  Estate,  165  A. 

566,  105  Vt  66. 

Va. — Richmond  Engineering  &  Mfg. 
Corporation  v.  Loth,  115  S.E.  774, 
135  Va.  110.  • 

1  C.J.  p  1009  note  7—33  C.J.  t>  1142 
note  60 — 42  C.J.  p  1287  note  14 
—51  C.J.  p  269  note  25. 
Belief  not  dependent  on  arguments 
"It  is  the  pleadings  and  the  de- 
veloped facts  within  the  pleadings 
that  courts  are  obliged  to  follow  and 
to  which  the  parties  and  counsel 
must  be  held;  not  arguments." — 
Mississippi  Power  &  Light  Co.  v. 
Pitts,  179  So.  363,  365,  181  Miss.  344. 

7.  Fla. — Corpus     Juris     quoted     in 
Edgar  v.  Bacon,   122   So.   107,  109, 
97  Fla.  679,  followed  in  Wright  v. 
Tatarian,    131    So.    r33,    100    Fla. 
1366. 

Iowa. — Bennett  v.  Green  wait,  286  N. 

W.  722,  226  Iowa  1113. 
S.C. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Little 

v.    Rivers,    185    S.E.   174,    175,    180 

S.C.  149. 
33  C.J.  p  1143  -note  61. 

8.  Fla. — Corpus     Juris     quoted     in 
Edgar  v.  Bacon,  122   So.   107,  109, 
97  Fla.  679,  followed  in  Wright  v. 
Tatarian,    131    So.    133,    100    Fla. 
1366. 

33  C.J.  p  1143  note  62. 

9.  Miss. — Southeastern  Exp.   Co.  v. 
Namie,  181  So.  515,  182  Miss.  447. 

Wash. — Exeter  Co.  v.  Holland  Corpo- 
ration, 23  P.2d  864,  172  Wash.  323. 
33  C.J.  p  1143  note  67. 

In  courts  where  written  pleadings 
are  not  required,  plaintiff  is  entitled 
to  any  appropriate  relief  on  facts 
established,  unless  on  the  trial  he 
has  adopted  and  insisted  on  a  con- 
trary theory  of  the  case. — Troxler 
v.  Bevlll,  3  S.E.2d  8,  215  N.C.  640. 

10.  Cal. — Herman  v.  Glasscock,  155 
P.2d  912,  38  Cal. App. 2 d  98. 

11.  Cal.— California  Stearns   Co.   v* 
Treadwell,  256  P.  594,  83  CaLApp. 
69. 

Kan.— Wright  v.  Jenks,   261  «P.   840, 

124  Kan.  604. 
Ky. — Quaack  v.  Kentucky  Title  Trust 

Co.,  106  S.W.2d  589,  268  Ky.  498. 
N.Y.— Weiss  v.  McKinner,  59  N.Y.S.2d 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


49 


judgment,  inconsistent  with  his  own  allegations  and 
admissions,  cannot  be  rendered  for  a  party.1*  If 
defendant  admits  liability  for  a  particular  sum, 
judgment  should  be  rendered  against  him  for  at 
least  such  sum,  and  a  judgment  of  nonsuit,  dis- 
missal, or  the  like  is  erroneous.13  A  judgment  for 
a  defendant  who  fails  to  answer  a  complaint  stat- 
ing a  cause  of  action  is  erroneous,  because  the  de- 
fault admits  the  case  alleged.1*  A  judgment  is  void 
for  inconsistency  where  it  grants  relief  both  to 
plaintiff  and  to  defendant  on  inconsistent  grounds.15 

In  determining  whether  or  not  the  pleadings  sup. 
port  the  judgment,  they  must  be  taken  as  a  whole,16 
and  construed  so  as  to  support  the  judgment,  if 
capable  of  such  a  construction.1?  Substantial  ac- 
cordance is  sufficient;18  and  to  upset  a  judgment 
for  variance  between  it  and  the  pleadings  in  a  con- 
tested case,  it  has  been  held  that  there  must  be  an 
entire  abandonment  of  the  very  substance  of  the 
dispute  to  which  defendant  was  summoned,  and  the 
substitution  of  another  which  he  could  not  have 
anticipated,  and  which  he  had  no  opportunity  to 
meet19  If  defendant  merely  files  an  answer  and 


defaults  thereafter,  a  closer  registry  between  plead- 
ing and  judgment  is  exacted  than  after  a  contested 
trial.20  The  presumption  is  that  the  relief  granted 
is  authorized  by  the  pleadings,  and  the  burden  is  on 
him  who  attacks  the  judgment  to  show  that  it  was 
not.21 


§  49.    Limitation  to  Relief  Sought  by 

Pleadings 

a.  In  general 

b.  Affirmative  relief  to  defendant 

a.  In  General 

As  a  general  rule  the  relief  awarded  should  conform 
to  that  sought  by  the  pleadings.;  but  this  rule  does  not 
always  apply,  particularly  where  there  is  a  prayer  for 
general  relief  or  where  the  statutes  have  broadened  the 
scope  of  permissible  relief,  and  In  many  cases  the  court 
has  power  to  grant  any  relief  within  the  issues  formed 
by  the  pleadings  and  justified  by  the  evidence,  regard- 
less of  the  specific  relief  demanded. 

Ordinarily,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  statute  to  the 
contrary,  the  relief  to  be  awarded  by  a  judgment 
should  be  consistent  with,  and  limited  to,  that  sought 


659— Levlne  v.  Weiss,  16  N.Y.S.2d 

1003. 
Tex. — Dashiel  v.  Lott,  ConouApp.,  243 

S.W.    1072,    rehearing:    denied    246 

S.W.     xvi — Great     Southern     Life 

Ins.  Co.  v.  Dorough,  Civ.App.,  100 

S.W.2d  772. 
33  C.J.  p  1143  note  63. 
Legal  effect  of  admitted  facts 

Where  all  the  material  foots  are 
established  by  admissions  in  the 
pleadings,  the  Judgment  must  be  In 
accordance  with  the  legal  effect  of 
such  facts  regardless  of  the  testi- 
mony on  other  issues,  unless  by  ac- 
tual or  implied  consent  the  parties 
have  tried  the  case  on  other  sub- 
stituted issues.— Reiff  v.  Mullholland, 
62  N.E.  124,  65  Ohio  St.  178—83  C. 
J.  p  1143  note  $5. 
Indebtedness  of  plaintiff 

(1)  In      action      by      borrowers 
against  lender  of  money,  where  un- 
controverted      proof     showed     that 
plaintiffs   were   indebted   to   defend- 
ants in  excess  of  their  claim,  enter- 
ing judgment  for  plaintiff  was  error. 
— Brecht   v.    Bankers'    Sec.   Co.,    1«33 
S.E.  79,  101  W.Va.  533. 

(2)  In  action  to  have  chattel  mort- 
gage   declared   void,    court   properly 
gave  defendant  judgment  for  amount 
of   debt   which   plaintiff  admitted.— 
Wilson    v.    Standard    Fertilizer   Co., 
166  S.E.  76,  203  N.C.  359. 

12.  Mo. — Drecksbage  v.  Dreckshage, 
176  -S.W.2d  7,  352  Mo.  78. 

33  C:J.  p  1156  note  59. 

13.  U.S. — Southern  Pac,  Co.  v.  Van 
Hoosear,  C.OA.Cal.,  72  F.2d  908. 


Ky.— Olark  v.  Mason,  95  S.W.2d  292, 

264  Ky.  683. 
N.C.— Penn  v.  King,  162  S.B.  376,  202 

N.C.  174. 
Tex— Illinois    Bankers'    Life    Ass'n 

v.  Floyd,  Com.  App.,  222  S.W.  967. 
33  C.J.  p  1143  note  63  [a],  [b]. 

14.  Tex.— Miller    v.     Nichols,     Civ. 
App.,  258  S.W.  855. 

3-3  C.J.  p  1143  note  $4. 

15.  Mo. — King   v.    Brockschmidt,    3 
Mo.App.  571. 

33  C.J.  p  1168  note  29. 

16.  Okl. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Oklahoma   Gas   &   Electric   Co.  v. 
Busha,    66    P.2d    64,    67,    179    Okl. 
505. 

•S.C.— Little  v.  Rivers,  185  SJ3J.  174, 

180  S.C.  149. 
Tex. — Corpus  Juris   cited  in  Cavers 

v.  Sioux  Oil  &  Refining  Co.,  Com. 

App.,  49  S.W.2d  862,  868. 
Utah.— La  Bee  v.  Smith,  229  P.  88,  64 

Utah  242.  ' 
33  CJ.  p  1144  note  77. 
Pleadings  of  lota  parties 

In  determining  the  relief  which 
may  be  accorded,  it  is  proper  to 
take  into  consideration  the  plead- 
ings of  both  parties. — Buchanan  v. 
Davis,  Tex.Com.App.,  60  S.W.2d  192 
— Cavers  v.  Sioux  Oil  &  Refining  Co., 
Tex.Com.App.,  49  S.W.2d  862— New 
Home  Sewing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Withrow, 
TexCiv.App.,  143  S.W.2d  971— Orms- 
by  v.  Ratcliff,  Tex.Civ.App.,  22  S.W. 
2d  504,  affirmed  Ormsby  v.  Ratcliffe, 
Com.App.,  36  S.W.2d  1005—33  C.J,  P 
1168  note  28  [a]  (2). 

Ill 


Adverse  interest*  between  code, 
fendants  may  be  passed  on,  and  a 
decree  rendered  between  them 
grounded  on  the  pleadings  and  proof 
between  plaintiff  and  defendants  and 
founded  on  and  connected  with  the 
subject  matter  in  litigation  between 
plaintiff  and  one  or  more  of  defend- 
ants, even  though  no  cross  pleadings 
be  filed,  especially  where  the  rights 
as  between  plaintiff  and  one  of  the 
defendants  cannot  be  adjudicated 
without  determining  rights  as  be- 
tween codefendants, — Gillam  v.  Co- 
line  Oil  Co.,  277  P.  639,  136  OkL 
257. 

17.  Okl. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Oklahoma   Gas   &   Electric  Co.   v. 
Busha,    66    P.2d    64,    67,    179    OkL 
505. 

S.C.— Little  v.  Rivers,  185  S.E.  17-4, 

180  S.C.  149. 
33  C.J.  p  1144  note  78. 

18.  S.C. — Little  v.   Rivers,   supra. 
33  C.J.  p  1144  note  79. 

19.  U.S. — Armand    Co.    v.     Federal 
Trade  Commission,  C.CJL,  84  P.2d 
97-3,  certiorari  denied  56  S.Ct  309, 
296  U.-S.  650,  80  L.Ed.  463,  certio- 
rari denied  57  S.Ct  189,  299  U.S. 
597,  81  L.Ed;  440,  rehearing  denied 
57  S.Ct  234,  299  U.S.  623,  81  L.Ed. 
459. 

20.  U.S.— Armand    Co.     v.    Federal 
Trade  Commission,  supra,         ' 

21.  Iowa. — American   Emigrant    Co. 
v.  Fuller,  50  N.W.  48,  83  Iowa  599. 

33  C.J.  p  1144  note  80. 


49 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


by  the  pleadings22  or  incidental  thereto.23  Where 
plaintiff  has  asked  only  for  specific  relief,  or  relief 
as  to  a  specific  subject  matter,  usually  no  more  ex- 
tensive or  different  relief  may  be  accorded  to  him.24 
However,  particularly  under  statutes  or  codes  in 
effect  so  providing,  the  demand  or  prayer  for  relief 
does  not  always  or  necessarily  determine  or  limit 


the  relief  which  may  be  granted,25  and  in  many  cas- 
es the  rule  is  stated  more  broadly  to  the  effect  that 
any  relief  fairly  within  the  issues  formed  by  the 
pleadings  and  justified  by  the  evidence  may  be  giv- 
en, regardless  of  the  specific  relief  asked  or  the 
form  of  the  action.26  Accordingly  it  has  been  held 
that,  notwithstanding  a  pleading  asks  for  the  wrong 


22,  tr.S.— iSylvan  Beach  v.  Koch,  C. 
C.A.MO.,  140  F.2d  852. 

Ariz. — Wall  v.  Superior  Court  of  Ya- 
vapai  Comity.  89  P.2d  624,  63  Ariz. 
344. 

Gad.— Lewis  V.  Kohls,  App..  1-60  P. 
2d  199. 

Conn. — Shaw  T.  Sj>elk«,  14T  A.  675, 
110  Conn.  208. 

Fla. — G-ralynn  Laundry  T.  Virginia 
Bond  &  Mortgage  Corporation,  163 
So.  706,  121  Fla.  812. 

Ga.— Burton  v.  Metropolitan  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  172  S.E.  41,  177.  Ga.  899, 
transferred,  see  173  S.E.  922,  48 
GauApp.  828. 

Idaho.— Mason  v.  Pelkes,  59  P.2d 
1087,  57  Idaho  10,  certiorarl  denied 
Pelkes  T.  Mason,  67  S.Ct.  319,  $99 
U.S.  615,  81  LJEd.  4&3— Angel  v. 
Mellea,  285  P.  461,  48  Idaho  750. 

I1L— (Barker  T.  Gray,  148  N.E.  325, 
317  111.  468— Wood  v.  Wood,  64 
N.E.2d  -385,  327  IlLApp.  «57. 

Iowa. — Federal  Land  Bank  of  Omaha 
v.  Jefferson,  295  K.W.  855,  229 
Iowa  1054,  1*32  A.L.R.  1282— In  re 
Collicott's  Estate,  283  N.W.  869, 
226  Iowa  106. 

Ky.— Jones  v.  York,  185  S.W.2d  40«4, 
299  Ky.  30«, 

La. — Mente  &  Co.  v.  Roane  Sugars, 
6  So.2d  731,  199  La.  636— Peters  v. 
Norris,  185  So.  481,  191  La.  436— 
Le  Blanc  v.  Cristlna,  140  So.  149, 
19  La.App.  397. 

Miss. — Kennlngton-Saenger  Theatres 
v.  State  ex  rel.  District  Attorney, 
18  So.2d  488,  196  Miss.  841r  153  A. 
L.R.  883. 

Mo.— Brown  v.  Wilson,  1S5  6.W.24 
176,  348  Mo.  658— -Hecker  v.  Bleish, 
3  S.W.2d  1008,  319  Mo.  149. 

N.M.— Van  Sickle  v.  Keck,  81  P.2d 
707,  42  N.M.  450. 

Pa. — Eddy  v.  Borough  of  Ashley,  125 
A.  308,  281  Pa.  4. 

Tex. — Grain  v.  Adams,  dv.App.,  120 
S.W.2d  290— Hake  v.  Dilworth, 
Civ.App.,  96  S:W.2d  121,  error  dis- 
missed—Lokey  T.  Elliott.  Civ.App,, 
88  S.W.2d  126— Elgin  v.  Banks, 
Civ.App.,  38  S.W.2d  149— Faison  T. 
Faison,  Civ.App.,  31  S.W.2d  828, 
error  dismissed — Community  Nat- 
ural <3a«  C*.  T.  Northern  Texas 
Utilities  Co.,  Civ.App.,  13  -S.W.2d 
194,  error  dismissed — Smith  v. 
Miller,  Civ.App.,  300  fi.W.  95"3— 
Creager  T.  Beamer  Syndicate,  Civ. 
App.,  274  S.W.  323. 

Utah.— Voyles  v.  Straka,  292  P.  913, 
77  Utah  171. 

Wis.—In  re  Kehl's  Estate,  254  N.W. 
639,  215  Wis>  353* 


Wyo. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Urbach 

v.    Urbach,    73    P.2d    953.    963,    62 

Wyo.  207,  113  A.L.R.  889. 
33    C.J.    p    1144    note    82—42   C.J.   P 

142  note  B3— 47  C.J.  P  430  note  69 

— 51  C.J.  p  270  note  33. 
Conformity   of  default  Judgment  to 

pleadings   and   proof  see   infra   § 

214. 
Relief  m  equity  as  limited  by  prayer 

for  relief'  see  Equity  §  607. 

"It  may  be  that  in  some  cases  a 
court  is  warranted  in  decreeing  to 
litigants  .rights  not  specifically  ask- 
ed for  in  the  prayer,  but  we  know 
of  no  rule  which  requires  a  trial 
court  to  render  a  judgment  in  favor 
of  a  litigant  who  does  not  plainly 
set  out  in  some  portion  of  his  plead- 
ing the  relief  which  he  desires  and 
to  which  he  deems  himself  entitled 
under  the  law.** — City  of  Floydada 
v.  Gilltem,  Tex.Civ.App.,  Ill  S.W.2d 
761,  763. 

23.  Ark. — Bentonville     v.     Browne, 
158   S.W.   161,   108   Ark.  306. 

33  C.J.  p  1145  note  83. 

Incidental  relief  in  foreclosure  suit 

(1)  It  is  within  the  power  of  the 
court  in  a  foreclosure  suit  to   give 
relief  as   to   incidental   matters   not 
specified    in   the    prayer,   where   the 
mortgage  stipulates  for  such  relief. 
— First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Heachem,  Tenn. 
Ch.,  36  S.W.  724—42  C.J.  p  143  note  54. 

(2)  Such  relief  may  also  be  given 
where    complainant    was    excusably 
ignorant  as   to   his   right  thereto. — 
Clark  v.  Mackin,  95  N.Y.  3-46—42  C 
J.  p  143  note  55. 

24.  La.— New    Orleans    Silica  Brick 
Co.  v.   John   Thatcher  &  Son,   107 
So.  236,  160  La.  392. 

Tex, — Railroad  Commission  of  Texas 
v.  Royal  Petroleum  Corporation, 
Civ.App.,  93  S.W,2d  761,  error  dis- 
missed-^Smith  v.  Jaggers,  Civ. 
App.,  16  S.W.2d  969,  error  dis- 
missed. 

33  C.J.  p  1148  note  2. 

25.  Ark. — Morgan     v.     Scott-Mayer 
Commission    Co.,    48    S.W.2d    838, 
185  Ark.   637. 

Cal. — Holmes  v.  Anderson,  265  .0?. 
1010,  90  CaLApp.  276. 

Colo.— Snell  v.  Public  Utilities  Com- 
mission, 114  P.2d  563,  108  Colo.  162 
— >Speyer  v.  School  Dist.  No.  1, 
City  and  County  of  Denver,  261  P. 
859,  82  Colo.  534 — Pomponio  v. 
Larsen,  251  P.  534,  80  Colo.  318. 

Ga. — Anderson  v.  Fulton  County 
Home  Builders,  92  S.E.  934,  147 
Ga,  104, 

112 


Idaho.— Schlieff  v.  Bistline,  15  P.2d 
726,  52  Idaho  353. 

Ill.-^Pure  Oil  Co.  v.  -Byrnes,  57  N.E. 
2d  356,  388  111.  26— Swofford  v. 
Swofford,  63  N.B.2d  615,  527  111. 
App.  25. 

Ind.— Rooker  v.  Leary,  149  N.B.  358, 
84  Ind.  App.  77 — Montgomery  v. 
Montgomery,  140  N.B.  917,  81  Ind. 
App.  1. 

Mo. — Homa-n  v.  Employers  Reinsur- 
ance Corporation,  136  S.W.2d  289, 
345  Mo.  650,  127  A.L.R.  163— Ben- 
trup  v.  Johnson,  14  S.W.2d  537,  223 
Mo.App.  299. 

Mont. — Malvaney  v.  Yager,  64  P.2d 
135,  101  Mont.  331. 

N.Y. — In  re  Feuer  Transp.,  65  N.B. 
2d  178,  295  N.Y.  87,  reargument 
denied  Feuer  Transp.  v.  Local  Un- 
ion No.  445  of  International  Broth- 
erhood of  Teamsters,  66  N.E.2d 
590,  295  N.Y.  821,  motion  denied 
66  N.B.2d  593,  295  N.Y.  825— 
Brown  Packing  Co.  v.  Lewis,  58 
N.Y.S.2d  443,  185  Misc.  445. 

Okl.— Reynolds  v.  Wall,  72  P.2d  505, 
181  Okl.  110,  113  A.L.R.  417— 
Owens  v.  OPurdy,  217'  P.  425,  90 
Okl.  256. 

Tenn. — Central  Bank  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Conn.  264  S.W.  641,  150  Tenn.  375. 

Utah. — Bolognese  v.  Anderson,  90 
P.2d  275,  97  Utah  136— Jeffries  v. 
Third  Judicial  Dist.  Court  of  Salt 
Lake  County,  63  P.2d  242,  90  Utah 
525. 

Prayer  not  determinative  of  right  to 

recover 
The  right  to  recover  depends,  not 

on  the  prayer,  but  on  the  scope  of 

the  pleadings,  and  the  issues  made, 

or    which    might   have    been    made, 

under    them. — Paulsen    v.    Western 

Electric  Co.,  171  P.  38.   67  Okl.  809. 

General  law  as  to  framing  of  judg- 
ment 
Where  the  general  law  prescribes 

the  manner  of  framing  a  judgment 

and  carrying  it   into  execution,   the 

court  '  may     follow     that     manner, 

whether  or  not  expressly  prayed  for. 

—Ex  parte  Weiler,   289   P.   645,    106 

Cal.App.  485. 

20.  Ark. — Albersen  v.  Klanke,  6  6. 
W.2d  292,  177  Ark.  288. 

Cal. — O'Melia  v.  A<3kins,  App.,  166  P. 
2d  298— Erskine  v.  Upham,  132  P. 
2d  210,  56  Cal.App.2d  235—80^ 
nicksen  v.  So'nnicksen,  113  OP.2d 
495,  45  Cal.Appv2d  46 — Zimmer  v. 
Gorehiik,  109  P.2d  34,  42  Cal.App. 
2d  440 — Lorraine  v.  Lorraine,  48 
P.2d  48,  8  Cal.App.2d  687— Masero 


t9    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  49 


•elief,  or  for  relief  which  cannot  be  granted,  the 
;ourt  may  grant  other  and  appropriate  relief.27 
\.  party  is  not  deprived  of  all  right  to  relief  merely 
>ecause  he  has  sought  more  than  he  is  entitled  to, 
ind  judgment  for  less  relief  than  demanded  may 
>e  given  when  sustained  by  the  pleadings-  and 
>roof.28 

A  judgment  which  grants  relief  of  a  character 
lot  sought  is  not  for  that  reason  void  ;29  at  most  it 


s  erroneous.30 

v.  Bessolo,  262  P.  61,  87  CaLApp. 
262. 

3olo. — Bncll  r.  Public  Utilities  Com- 
mission, 114  P.2d  563,  108  Colo. 
162. 

11. — Yakich  v.  Smietanka,  63  N.E.2d 
718,  392  111.  53. 

Can. — Eberhardt  Lumber  Co.  v.  I*e- 
cuyer,  110  P.2d  757,  153  Kan.  386 
— Shelley  v.  Sentinel  Life  Ins.  Co., 
69  iP.2d  737,  146  Kan.  227. 

JLo. — Merz  v.  Tower  Grove  Bank  & 
Trust  Co,,  130  S;W.2d  611,  344  Mo. 
1150 — Jones  v.  Campbell,  App.,  189 
S.W.2d  124. 

tfont. — Malvaney  v.  Yager,  5'4  P.2d 
135,  101  Mont.  331— Outlook  Farm- 
ers' Elevator  Co.  v.  American 
Surety  Co.  of  New  York,  223  P. 
905.  70  Mont.  8. 

*.Y.— Hells  tern  v.  Hellstern,  18  N. 
E.2d  296,  279  N.Y.  327— New 
Chester  Theatre  Corporation  v. 
Bischoff,  205  N.Y.S.  641.  210  App. 
Div.  125— Allen  v.  Mattison,  14  N. 
Y.S.2d  711. 

*.C.— Lockman  v.  Lockman,  16  S.E. 
2d  670,  220  N.C.  95— Dry  v.  Board 
of  Drainage  Com'rs  of  Gabarrus 
County,  Drainage  Dist  No.  6,  11 
S.E.2d  143,  218  N.C.  356— Troacler 
v.  Bevill,  3  S.E.2d  8,  215  N.C.  640 
—Virginia  Trust  Co.  v.  Webb,  173 
S.E.  598,  206  NjC.  247. 

3kl.WTucker  v.  Porter,  72  R2d  388, 
181  Okl.  30 — Harmon  v.  Hines,  16 
P.2d  94,  160  Okl.  120— Page  v.  Ok- 
lahoma City,  263  OP.  448,  12J9  Okl. 
28— Rose  v.  Firat  Nat  Bank,  219 
P.  715,  93  Okl.  120. 

3.C.— Palmetto  Compress  &  Ware- 
house Co.  v.  Citizens  &  Southern 
Nat.  Bank,  20  S.E.2d  232,  200  S.C. 
20 — Youmans  v.  Youmans,  121  SJB3. 
674,  128  S.C.  31. 

Tex. — Honaker  v.  Guffey  Petroleum 
Co.,  294  S.W.  259. 

{3  C.J.  p  1149  note  5,  p  1150  note  7. 

Amendments  to  prayer 

(1)  In  a  proper  case  the  court  will 
illow  amendments  to  be  made  to 
the  prayer  in  order  to  justify  a 
judgment  affording  appropriate  re- 
lief.—Burd  v.  Downing,  213  P.  287, 
30  Cal.App.  493. 

(2)(  It  has  also  been  held,  how- 
ever, that  an  amendment  to  the 
prayer  of  the  petition  is  not  a  pre- 
requisite to  such  relief. — Snehoda  v. 

49  C.J.S.-8 


In  contested  cases,  or  cases  in  which  an  answer 
has  been  filed  the  relief  which  may  be  granted  is 
not  limited  to  that  demanded  in  the  complaint  or 
specifically  prayed  for,  particularly  under  statutes 
in  effect  so  providing;31  the  court  may  grant  any 
relief  which  is  consistent  with  the  case  made  by  the 
pleadings  and  proofs,  and  embraced  within  the  is- 
sues.32 The  effect  of  a  statute  providing  that, 
where  defendant  appears  and  answers,  plaintiff  shall 


First  Nat   Bank  in  Wichita,   224   P. 
91*4,  115  Kan.  836. 

27.  Ariz. — -Keystone  Copper  Min.  Co. 
v.  Miller,  164  P.2d  603. 

Cal. — Bank  of  America  Nat.  Trust 
&  Savings  Ass'n  v.  Gillett,  97  P.2d 
875,  36  Cal.App.2d  453— Neblett  v. 
Neblett,  66  P.2d  969,  13  Cal.App. 
2d  304. 
Colo.— Pope  v.  Parker,  271  P.  1118, 

84  Colo.  535. 

La. — Prejean   v.   East   Baton   Rouge 
Parish  Democratic  Executive  Com- 
mittee, 19  So.2d  376,   206  La.  658. 
Mo. — Rains    v.    Moulder,    90    S.W.2d 

81,  338  Mo.  275. 

N.T.— Lonsdale  v.  Spever,  291  N.Y. 
$.  495,  249  App.Dlv.  133— Seedman 
v.  Benenson  Realty  Co.,  60  N.Y.S. 
2d  341,  185  Misc.  769— Brown 
Packing  Co.  v.  Lewis,  58  N.Y.S.2d 
443,  185  Misc.  445. 

Erroneous  prayer  for  eq.uita'ble  relief 
If  complaint  states  facts  showing 
cause  of  action  at  law,   court  will 
disregard  prayer  for  equitable  relief 
and  give  plaintiff  appropriate  reme- 
dy in  law, — Welsh  v.  Markham,  210 
N.W.  70-6,  191.  Wis.  310. 
Compliance  with  statutory  require- 
ments 

Where  the  allegations  of  a  com- 
plaint under  statute  are  sufficient 
to  satisfy  the  statutory  require- 
ments, it  is  immaterial  that  the 
prayer  for  relief  is  inappropriate. — 
Hamilton  v.  Hamilton,  139  N.Y.-S. 
1095,  78  Misc.  557. 

28.  Ind.— State    ex    rel.    Mavity   v. 
Tyndall,  66  N.R2d  755. 

Ky. — Cooper  v.  McWilliams  &  Rob- 
inson, 298  S.W.  961,  221  Ky.  320. 

La. — Martinez  v.  Orleans  Parish 
School  Board,  98  So.  860,  155  La. 
116— Harries  v.  Courcier,  119  So. 
90S,  16  La.App.  22. 

N.Y.— Vickers  v.  Tickers,  282  N.Y.S. 
422,  156  Misc.  724. 

-Wash.— Washington  Pulp  &  Paper 
Corporation  v.  Robinson,  6  P.2d 
e32,  166  Wash.  210. 

Wyo.~ Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Ur- 
bach  v.  Urbach,  73  P.2d  953,  962, 
52  Wyo.  207,  113  A.L.R.  889. 

33  C.J.  p  1145  note  84. 

interest  than  entire  ownership 
Appropriate     pleading     of     entire 

ownership  in  property  sued  for  will 

authorize  recovery  of  a  less  interest, 

113 


where  warranted  by  the  proof. — Gay 
v.  Jackman,  TexjCom.App.,  254  S.W. 
927—51  C.J.  p  270  note  38  [a], 

29.  Cal. — Luekey  v.   Superior  Court 
in    and   for   Los   Angeles    County, 
287  P.  450,  209  Cal.  360. 

Ky, — Middleton  v.  Graves,  17  S.W.24 

741,  229  Ky.  640. 
33  C.J.  p  1148  note  2  [b]. 

However,  it  has  also  been  held 
that  a  judgment  in  an  action  to  de- 
termine adverse  claims  to  vacant 
and  unoccupied  lands,  awarding  re- 
lief -beyond  the  scope  of  the  com- 
plaint,  is  not  a  mere  irregularity,, 
but  extrajudicial  and  void. — Hurr  v. 
Davis,  193  N.W.  94-3,  155  Minn.  456. 
rehearing  denied  194  N.W.  379,  155 
Minn.  456,  certiorari  denied  44  S.Ct. 
36,  263  U.S.  709,  68  L.Ed.  518,  and 
error  dismissed  45  S.Ct.  227,  267  U.S. 
572,  69  L.Ed.  794. 
Unsupported  portion 

Where  the  pleadings  do  not  war- 
rant a  decree  or  part  of  a  decree  en- 
tered, and  the  decree  or  such  part 
of  it  is  clearly  and  unmistakably 
beyond  the  scope  of  the  pleadings, 
then  the  decree  or  such  part  of  it  is 
void  and  not  merely  erroneous.— 
Simmons  v.  Yoho,  115  S.E.  851,  92 
W.Va.  703. 

30.  Ky.— (Middleton  v.  Graves,  17  S, 
W.2d  7-41,  229  Ky.  640. 

31.  Cal. — Estrin   v.    Superior   Court 
in  and  for  Sacramento  County,  96 
iP.2d  340,   14   Cal.Sd   670— Pedro  v. 
Scares,  64  P.2d  776,  18  Cal.App.23 
600. 

La.— Clesi  v.  National  Life  &  Acci- 
dent Ins.  Co.,  App.,  193  So.  89 7t 
affirmed  197  So.  413,  195  La.  736.. 

Minn. — La  Rue  Iron  Mining  Co.  v. 
Village  of  Nashwauk,  222  N.W.. 
527,  176  Minn.  117. 

Tex. — Duncan  v.  Green,  Civ.App.t. 
113  S.W.2d  656,  error  dismissed. 

33  C.J.  p  1146  notes  89,  92^5}  C.J., 
p  270  note  35. 

32.  Cal. — Estrin   v.   (Superior  Court, 
in  and  for  Sacramento  County,  96; 
P.2d  540,   14   Cal.2d   670 — Zumwalt 
v.  Hargrave,  App.,  162  P.2d  957 — 
Davis   v.   -Stewart,    127   P.2d   1014,. 
53   CaLApp.2d.  439— York  v.   Beck.. 
App.,  118  P.2d  316— Martin  v.  Pa- 
cific  Southwest   Royalties,   106  P. 
2d    44-3,    41    Cal.App.2d    161 — Allen 
v.     California    Mut.     Building    &- 


§  49 


JUDGMENTS 


49    O.J.S 


not  be  confined  to  the  relief  demanded  is  merely  to 
relieve  plaintiff  from  any  technical  objection  that 
he  has  not  prayed  for  the  precise  relief  to  which,  on 
the  trial,  he  may  seem  entitled;  and  the  relief  to  be 
granted  must  still  conform  to,  and  be  consistent 
with,  the  case  made  by  the  pleadings  and  proof.83 
A  demurrer  has  been  held  not  an  answer  within  the 
meaning  of  such  a  statute;34  but  there  is  also  au- 
thority to  the  contrary.35  Defendant's  election  to 
stand  on  the  sufficiency  of  his  answer,  after  a  de- 
murrer thereto  has  been  sustained,  is  not  equiva- 


lent to  withdrawal  of  the  answer,  with  respect  to 
whether  or  not  relief  may  be  granted  exceeding 
that  demanded  by  the  complaint** 

Prayer  for  general  relief.  Where  «a  prayer  for 
general  relief  is  added  to  the  demand  of  specific 
relief,  the  court  is  not  limited  to  the  specific  de- 
mand, but  may  grant,  particularly  under  code  prac- 
tice, such  other  appropriate  relief  as  may  be  con- 
sistent with  the  allegations  and  proofs  and  neces- 
sary to  adjust  fully  the  equities  of  the  case,37  at 


Loan  Ass'n,  104  P.2d  851,  40  Cal. 
App.2d  374 — Pedro  v.  Scares,  64  P. 
2d  776,  18  Cal.App.2d  600— Sam- 
uels v.  Singer,  86  P.2d  1098,  1  Cal. 
App.2d  545,  amended  and  rehear- 
ing denied  37  P.2d  1050,  1  Cal.App. 
2d  545— «intzel  v.  Wagner,  6  P.2d 
29*,  119  CaLApp.  335— Murdock  v. 
Fisher  Finance  Corporation,  251  P. 
319,  7-9  CaLApp.  787-^Takovich  v. 
Romer,  240  P.  39,  74  CaLApp.  333. 
Idaho.— Schlieff  v.  BIstline,  15  P.2d 

726,  52  Idaho  35*3. 

3STev.— Buaas  v.  Buaas,  147  P.2d  495, 
62  Nev.  232 — Keyes  v.  Nevada  Gas 
Co.,  38  P.2d  661,  55  Nev.  431. 
N.C. — Simms  v.   Sampson,   20  S.B.2d 

55*.  221  N.C.  «79. 

N.D. — Jacobson  v.  Mutual  Ben. 
Health  &  Accident  Ass'n,  296  N.W, 
545,  70  N.D.  566. 

Tex. — Hubb  Diggs  Co.  v.  Fort  Worth 
State  Bank,  298  8.W.  419,  117  Tex 
107. 
33  C.J.  p  1146  note  91,  p  1150  note  6 

—51  C.J.  p  270  note  38. 
"Issue" 

Word  "issue,"  as  used  in  statute 
providing  that  court  may  grant 
plaintiff  any  relief  embraced  within 
issue,  is  broader  than  complaint, 
where  answer  enlarges  the  same  by 
introducing  new  matter. — 'McAllister 
v.  Union  Indemnity  Co.,  42  P.2d  305, 
2  Cal.2d  457. 

Granting  divorce  on  complaint  ask- 
ing separation 

Even  though  husband's  complaint 
asked  only  for  separation  and  gen- 
eral relief,  and  no  statute  permits 
him  to  bring  separation  action,  yet, 
where  it  alleged  acts  of  cruelty  en- 
titling him  to  divorce,  it  was  held 
sufficient  for  that  purpose,  on  de- 
fendant answering. — Slettebak  v. 
Slettebak,  201  N.W.  716,  48  S.D.  51. 

33.  Ky.— Perkins   v.    Hardwick,    121 
S.W.24  20,  275  Ky.  182. 

33  C.J.  p  1146  note  90. 

34.  Nev.— Mariner  v.  Milisch,  200  P. 
478,  45  Nev.  193. 

33  C.J.  p  1148  note  96. 

35.  N.T.— Pearce  v.  Knapp,  127  N.Y. 
S.  1100,  71  Misc.  324. 

Wis.— Tiles  v.  Green,  64  N.W.  856, 
91  Wis.  217. 

3$.    Wis. — Numbers  v.  Union  Mortg. 


Loan  Co..  247  N.W.  442,  211  Wis. 
30. 

37.  Ark.— Realty  Inv.  Co.  v.  Hig- 
gins,  91  S.W.2d  1030,  192  Ark.  423 
— Morgan  v.  Scott-Mayer  Commis- 
sion Co.,  48  S.W.2d  838,  185  Ark. 
637. 

Cal. — Martin  v.  Hall,  26  P.2d  288,  219 
Cal.  334— Knox  v.  Wolfe,  App.,  167 
P.2d  3— Rinker  v.  McKinley,  149  P. 
2d  859,  65  Cal.App.2d  109— Brskine 
v.  Upham,  132  P.2d  219,  56  Cal. 
App.2d  235 — Sonnicksen  v.  Son- 
nicksen,  113  P.2d  495,  45  Cal.App. 
2d  46. 

Fla. — Semple  v.  -Semple,  105  So.  134, 
90  Fla.  7. 

Ga. — Taylor  v.  Cureton,  25  S.E.2d 
815,  196  Ga.  28— Matson  v.  Crowe, 
19  <S.E.2d  288,  195  Ga.  578— Bleck- 
ley  v.  Bleckley,  5  S.R2d  206,  189 
Ga.  47 — Bowers  v.  Dolen,  1  S.E.2d 
734,  187  Ga,  653-^Monroe  v.  Dia- 
mond Match  Co.,  185  S.E.  814,  182 
Ga.  438 — Sanders  v.  Jones,  142  S. 
E.  680,  166  Ga.  18-6— Broderick  v. 
Reid,  1«9  S.B.  18,  164  Ga.  474. 

Idaho. — Barker  v.  McKellar,  296  P. 
196,  50  Idaho  226. 

111.— Updike  v.  Smith,  39  N.B.2d  325, 
378  111.  600 — Browning  v.  Brown- 
ing, 46  N.E.2d  101,  317  IlLApp. 
372,  transferred,  see  39  N.E.2d 
375,  379  HI.  29— Kaifer  v.  Kaifer, 
3  N.E.2d  886,  286  IlLApp.  433. 

Iowa. — Wagner  v.  Northern  Securi- 
ties Co.,  284  N.W.  461,  226  Iowa 
568. 

Kan.— Katschor  v.  Ley,  113  P.2d  127, 
153  Kan.  569. 

Ky.—Bevins  v.  Ford,  194  «S.W.2d  657, 
302  Ky.  346— National  Savings  & 
Building  Ass'n  v.  Hutchinson,  144 
S.W.2d  1029,  284  Ky.  408— Dotson 
v.  Peoples  Bank,  27  iS.W.2d  673, 
234  Ky.  138. 

La. — Abadie  v.  Gluck's  Restaurant 
Corporation,  121  So.  757,  168  La. 
241 — Lyons  Planning  Mills  v. 
Guillot,  App.,  146  So.  700— Harris 
v.  Henderson  Land,  Timber  &  In- 
vestment Co.,  119  So.  893,  9  La. 
App.  279. — Buckley  v.  Lindsey  Mer- 
cantile Co.,  5  La.  App.  467 — De 
Bellevue  v.  Couvillion,  3  La.App. 
568 — Levy  v.  Ebeyer  &  Winteler, 
3  La.App.  500. 

Mass.— J.  Abrams  &  Co.  v.  Clark,  11  I 
N.EL2d  449,  298  Mass.  542— Har-l 

114 


vey  v.  Crooker,  166  N.E.  828,  267 
Mass.  279. 

Mich. — People's  Mortg.  Corporation 
v.  Wilton,  208  N.W.  60,  234  Mich. 
252. 

Mo. — Homan  v.  Employers  Reinsur- 
ance Corporation,  136  S.W.Sd  289, 
•345  Mo.  650,  127  A.L.R.  163— Rains 
v.  Moulder,  90  S.W.2d  81,  338  Mo. 
275 — State  Bank  of  Willow 
Springs  v.  Lillibridge,  293  S.W. 
116,  316  Mo.  968— Breit  v.  Bow- 
land,  App.,  127  S.W.2d  71 — Cun- 
ningham v.  Kinnerk,  74  S.W.2d 
1107,  2-30  Mo.App.  749— Kreger 
Glass  Co.  v.  Kreger,  App.,  49  S.W. 
2d  260. 

Mont. — Torelle.  v.  Templeman,  21  P. 
2d  60,  94  Mont.  149. 

Neb. — Van  Steenberg  v.  Nelson,  22 
N.W.2d  414 — Johnson  v.  Radio 
station  W  O  W,  14  N.W.2d  666, 
144  Neb.  406,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  Radio  Station  WOW 
v.  Johnson,  65  SjCt  1475,  326  tT.S. 
120,  89  L.Ed.  2092,  mandate  con- 
formed to  19  N.W.2d  £53,  -motion 
denied  66  S.Ct.  11— School  Dist. 
No.  70,  Red  Willow  County,  v. 
Wood,  13  N.W.2d  153,  144  Neb.  241 
— Copass  v.  Wilborn,  296  N.W.  565, 
1-39  Neb.  124— Hilton  v.  Clements, 
291  N.W.  483,  137  Neb.  791,  138 
Neb.  143 — Burnham  v.  Bennison, 
236  N.W.  745,  121  Neb.  291. 

OkL— Tucker  v.  Porter,  72  OP.2d  388, 
181  OkL  30— Brown  v.  Privette, 
234  P.  577,  109  Okl.  1— Owens  v. 
Purdy,  217  P.  425,  90  Okl.  256. 

Or.— McCredie  v.  McCredie,  294  P. 
361,  134  Or.  517 — Kerschner  v. 
Smith,  256  P.  195,  121  Or.  469 — 
Wm.  H.  Taylor  Finance  Corpora- 
tion v.  Oregon  Logging  &  Timber 
Co.,  241  P.  388,  116  Or.  440. 

Tex. — Starr  v.  Ferguson,  166  S.W.2d 
1-30,  140  Tex.  80 — George  v.  Wil- 
liamson, Com. App.,  23  S.W.2d  675 
— 'Morris  v.  Biggs  &  Co.,  Civ.App., 
165  S.W.2d  915,  error  dismissed — . 
Railroad  Commission  of  Texas  v. 
Royal  Petroleum  Corporation,  Civ. 
App.,  93  S.W.2d  761,  error  dismiss- 
ed— Great  Southern  Life  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Williams,  Civ.App.,  77  S.W.2d 
900— Blair  v.  Bird,  Civ.App.,  20 

'  S."V^.2d  8"43 — Sabens  v.  Cochrum, 
Civ.App.,  292  S.W.  281— Hinn  v. 
Forbes,  Civ.App.,  264  S.W.  190— 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  49 


least  where  a  defense  has  been  made.88  A  general 
prayer  for  relief  is  not,  however,  a  coverall,3^  and 
even  under  such  a  prayer  the  court  cannot  grant  re- 
lief inconsistent  with,  or  entirely  different  from, 
that  which  is  specifically  prayed  for,40  or  which  is 


beyond  or  inconsistent  with  the  allegations  of  the 
pleadings  or  the  facts  proved.41 

Materiality  of  variance.  A  material  variance  be- 
tween the  relief  sought  and  that  awarded  has  been 
held  fatal  to  the  judgment;42  but  it  is  otherwise 
where  the  variance  is  immaterial  and  so  slight  that 


Mima  v.  Hunken,  Civ.App..  262 
S.W.  930,  error  dismissed  Nation- 
al Compress  Co.  v.  Hamlin,  269 
S.W.  1024,  114  Tex.  375— Coward 
v.  Booth,  Civ.App.,  251  S.W.  650, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  Booth 
v.  Coward,  Com.App.t  265  S.W. 
1026. 
Utah.— Walker  v.  Singleton,  225  P. 

81,  63  Utah  283. 

W.Va. — Bowman  v.  Hartford  Fire 
Ins.  Co.,  169  S.E.  443,  113  W.Va, 
784. 

33  C.J.  p  1148  note  3—42  C.J.  p  143 
note   57—47   C.J.   p  430   note  71— 
51  C.J.  p  271  notes  42,  43. 
Belief    allowable    in    equity    under 
prayer  for  general  relief  see  Equi- 
ty §  607  b. 
Avoidance  of  circuit?  of  action 

Under  prayer  for  general  relief, 
court  may  render  such  judgment  as 
would  be  given  in  new  suit  to  avoid 
circuity  of  action. — Harsh  v.  Avegno, 
3  La.App.  294. 

Judgment    for   possession   in   eject- 
ment action 

There  may  be  a  judgment  for  pos- 
session in  an  ejectment  action  al- 
though there  is  no  specific  prayer 
therefor,  where  the  complaint  con- 
tains proper  averments,  a  general 
prayer  for  relief,  and  there  is  a 
finding  for  possession. — Evans  v. 
Schafer,  21  N.E.  448,  119  Ind.  49. 
Cancellation  of  instruments  and  res- 
titution of  money  paid 
In  suit  by  vendee  for  rescission 
of  a  contract  of  purchase  of  land,  a 
prayer  for  general  relief  was  held 
to  justify  decree  of  canceling  con- 
tract and  notes  and  ordering  restitu- 
tion of  the  money  paid  by  purchas- 
er on  the  property. — Loughry  v. 
Cook,  Tex.Civ.App.,  2fr3  S.W.  333. 

88.  Ky. — Perkins  v.  Hardwick,  121 
S.W.2d  20,  275  Ky.  182— Hickman 
County  Board  of  Drainage  Com'rs 
v.  Union  Stock  Land  Bank,  8*3  S. 
W.2d  511,  259  Ky.  823— Young  v. 
Barnett,  80  S.W.2d  16,  258  £y.  330 
— Lincoln  Bank  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Ar- 
nold, 75  S.W.2d  751,  256  Ky.  80-r- 
Farley  v.  Gibson,  30  S.W.2d  876, 
235  Ky,  164. 

La. — Muse  v.  Sharp,  App.,  155  So. 
300. 

Mo. — Southwest  Pump  &  Machinery 
Co.  v.  Forslund,  29  S.W.2d  165, 
225  Mo.App.  262. 

39.  Ky. — Oawood        v.        Cawood's 
Adm'x,  147  S.W.2d  88,  285  Ky.  201. 

40.  U.S. — In  re  Wesley  Corporation, 
D.C.Ky.,  18  FJSupp.  347.  ,  \ 


Ga.— Brockett  v.  Maxwell,  35  S.E.2d 
906 — Christopher  v.  Whitmire,  34 
S.E.2d  100,  199  Ga.  280— Taylor 
v.  Cureton,  25  S.R2d  815,  196 
Ga.  28. 

Iowa.— Davis  v.  Davis,  229  N.W.  855, 
209  Iowa  1186; 

Ky.-JCawood  v.  Cawood's  Adm'x, 
147  S.W.2d  88,  285  Ky.  201— Jame- 
son v.  Jameson,  133  S.W.2d  923, 
280  Ky.  554. 

La, — Stubbs  v.  Imperial  Oil  &  Gas 
Products  Co.,  114  So.  595,  164  La. 

.  689. 

Or.— Wm.  H.  Taylor  Finance  Corpo- 
ration v.  Oregon  Logging  &  Tim- 
ber Co.,  241  OP.  388,  116  Or.  4'40. 

Tex. — Jennings  v.  Texas  Farm 
Mortg.  Co.,  80  S.W.2d  9-31,  124  Tex. 
593— San  Antonio  &  A.  P.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Collins,  Com.App.,  61  S.W.2d  84 
— Ellzey  v.  Allen,  Civ.App.,  172 
S.W.2d  70*3,  error  dismissed — Tabb 
v.  City  of  Mt.  Pleasant,  Civ.App.. 
12  S.W.2d  831— Vanlandingham  v. 
Terry,  Civ. App.,  293  S.Wt  252. 

Va.— Winston  v.  Winston,  130  S.B. 
784,  144  Va.  848. 

33  C.J.  p  1149  note  4. 

Specific  performance  in  suit  for  re- 
scission 

A  purchaser  of  land  whose  suit 
for  rescission  and  recovery  of  pur- 
chase price  was  barred  was  not  en- 
titled to  specific  performance  under 
his  prayer  for  general  relief,  since 
right  to  specific  performance  was 
inconsistent  with  right  to  rescind 
and  might  depend  on  wholly  differ- 
ent facts.— Wall  v.  Zynda,  278  N.W. 
66,  283  Mich.  260,  114  A.L.H.  1521. 

41.  U.S. — In  re  Wesley  Corporation, 
DJC.Ky.,  18  F.Supp.  347. 

Cal. — -Morrow  v.  Morrow,  105  P.2d 
129,  40  Cal.App.2d  474— Petition 
of  Furness,  218  P.  61,  62  CaLApp. 
753. 

Ga. — Comstock  v.  Tarbush,  37  S.B. 
2d  148,  transferred  see,  APP-.  37 
S.E.2d  -925— Christopher  v.  Whit- 
mire,  34  S.B.2d  100,  199  Ga.  280— 
Taylor  v.  Cureton,  25  S.B.2d  815, 
196  Ga.  28. 

Ind. — Denney  v.  Peters,  10  N.B.2d 
754,  104  Ind.App.  504. 

Iowa. — Manassa  v.  Garland,  206  N. 
W.  38,  200  Iowa  1129. 

Ky.—Cawood  v.  Cawood's  Adm'x,  147 
S.W.2d  88,  285  Ky.  201— Jameson 
v.  Jameson,  133  S.W.2d  923,  280 
Ky.  554. 

Mass. — Harbour  v.  Sampson,  165  K. 
B.  14,  266  Mass.  180. 

Minn. — Briggs    v.    Kennedy    Mayon- 

115 


naise  Products,  297  N.W.  342,  209 
Minn.  312. 

Miss. — Kennington-Saenger  Theatres 
v.  State  ex  rel.  Dist.  Atty.,  18  So. 
2d  483,  196  Miss.  841,  153  A.L.H. 
883. 

Mo.— Barlow  v.  Scott,  85  S.W.2d 
504— Fielder  v.  Fielder,  App.,  6  S. 
W.2d  968. 

Nev.— Buaas  v.  Buaas,  147  P.2d  495, 
62  Nev.  232. 

Or. — Wm.  H.  Taylor  Finance  Corpo- 
ration v.  Oregon  Logging  &  Tim- 
ber Co.,  241  P.  388,  116  Or.  440. 

Tenn.— Merritt  v.  Merritt,  10  Tenn. 
App.  369. 

Tex. — Starr  v.  Ferguson,  166  S.W.2d 
130,  140  Tex.  80— Verschoyle  v. 
Holifield,  123  S.W.Sd  878,  132  Tex. 
516 — Adleson  v.  B.  F.  Dittmar  Co., 
80  S.W.2d  939,  124  Tex.  564— Jen- 
nings v.  Texas  Farm  Mortg.  Co., 
80  S.W.2d  9/31,  124  Tex.  593— Ar- 
rington  v.  McDaniel,  14  S.W.2d 
1009,  questions  answered  25  S.W. 
2d  295,  119  Tex.  148. 

51  C.J.  p  271  note  41. 

'specific  performance  in  suit  to  quiet 

title 

Prayer  for  general  relief  in  peti- 
tion to  quiet  title  containing  no  al- 
legation for  affirmative  equitable  re- 
lief does  not  authorize  judgment  for 
specific  performance. — Congregation 
B'Nai  Abraham  v.  Arky,  20  S.W.2d 
899,  323  Mo.  776. 

Personal  Judgment  in   stockholder's 

representative  action 
"General  relief"  in  a  representa- 
tive action  by  a  stockholder  does  not 
comprehend  a  personal  judgment  In 
favor  of  stockholder  against  corpo- 
ration based  on  debt  or  other  liabil- 
ity either  as  part  of  his  cause  of 
action  against  corporation  entitling 
him  to  sue  as  its  representative  or 
the  corporation's  cause  of  action 
against  the  wrongdoer. — Briggs  v. 
Kennedy  Mayonnaise  Products/  297 
N.W.  342,  209  Minn.  312. 

Foreclosure  of  lien  in  tort  action 

Under  prayer  for  general  relief  in 
action  based  on  alleged  tort  and 
wherein  relief  sought  was  by  way 
of  damages,  plaintiff  was  held  not 
entitled  to  foreclosure  of  lien,  where 
there  was  no  alternative  prayer  for 
foreclosure. — McKee  v*  Mathias,  Tex. 
Civ.App.,  83  S.W.2d  744,  error  dis- 
missed. 

42.  HL— Condit  v. 'Stevenson,  13  111. 
App.  417.  . 


§  49 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


plaintiff  would  be  permitted  to  amend  at  any  time 
without  costs.48 

Alternative  relief.  A  judgment  for  alternative 
relief  is  sometimes  proper  where  demanded,44  but  it 
is  not  proper  if  not  asked  for  in  the  pleadings.45 
Where  relief  on  two  counts  is  sought  in  the  alterna- 
tive, it  has  been  held  that  judgment  should  not  be 
rendered  on  both  counts.4* 

b.  Affirmative  Belief  to  Defendant 

In  general,  an  answer  which  has  demanded  no  af- 
firmative relief,  such  as  an  answer  setting  up  merely  a 
defense,  will  not  support  a  judgment  granting  affirma- 
tive relief  to  the  defendant.  On  proper  pleadings  and 
proof,  however,  a  defendant  may  have  affirmative  re* 
lief  in  accordance  with  that  demanded  by  him. 


It  is  a  general  rule  that  where  the  answer  prays 
for  no  affirmative  relief,  defendant  can  have  none, 
and  a  judgment  granting  affirmative  relief  in  such 
cases  is  erroneous  because  not  in  conformity  with 
the  issues  raised  by  the  pleadings.4*  An  answer 
which  sets  up  merely  a  defense  will  not  support  a 
judgment  giving  defendant  affirmative  relief  ;4$  but 
the  fact  that  pleadings  are  defensive  in  their  nature 
does  not  mean  that  they  may  not  also  be  used  as  a 
basis  for  affirmative  relief,  where  the  facts  pleaded 
are  sufficient  to  entitle  the  pleader  to  affirmative  re- 
lief, and  where  there  is  a  prayer  for  such  relief.49 
An  affirmative  judgment  for  defendant  is  proper 
where  it  is  justified  by  the  pleadings  and  proof,50 
particularly  under  codes  and  practice  acts  provid- 


43.  Mass. — Hargrave     v.     American 
Steel  &  Wire  Co.,  106  N.E.  637,  219 
Mass.  6. 

33  C.J.  p  1145  note  87. 

44.  Okl. — Steiner    v.    TTrquart,    225 
P.  695,  99  Okl.  60. 

45.  Tex. — Jennings  v.   Texas   Farm 
Mortg.    Co.,    80    S.W.2d    931,     124 
Tex,  593. 

46.  Mo. — Schroll   v.   Noe,   App.,    297 
S.W.    99*9,   Quashal   of  opinion  de- 
nied State  ex  rel.  Noe  v.  Cox,  19 
S.W.2d  695,  323  Mo.  520. 

Ohio. — Priller  v.  Auglaize  Hotel  Co., 
App.,  36  N.E.2d  1019.  , 

47.  Conn. — Switzer  v,  Turansky,  124 
A.  720,  101  Conn.  60. 

Ga, — Greenwood  v.  Greenwood,  160 
S.E.  392,  173  Ga.  348. 

Iowa. — Liscomb  IS  tat  e  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Leise,  207  N.W.  330,  201  Iowa  353. 

Kan. — Burgner-Bowman  Lumber  Co. 
v.  McCord-Kistler  Mercantile  Co., 
216  P.  815,  114  Kan.  10,  35  A-L.R. 
242. 

gy.— Jacobs  T,  Wells,  111  S.W.2d 
5?4,  271  Ky.  82 — Dunn  v.  Cham- 
pion, 99  S.W.2d  813,  266  Ky.  757. 

La. — David  v.  Guilbeau,  App.,  180  So. 
850— Stafford  v.  Tolmas  Realty 
Co.,  App.,  146  So.  61,  transferred, 
see  139  So.  766,  174  La.  83— Hal- 
pern  v.  Cornelison,  133  So.  898, 
16  La.App.  344. 

Mich.— McCaslin  v.  Schouten,  292  N. 
W.  696,  294  Mich.  180— Reich  Y. 
Schmidt,  218  N.W.  671,  242  Mich. 
130. 

Miss. — Hayes  v.  National  Surety  Co., 
153  So.  515,  169  Miss.  676. 

Mo.— Friedel  v.  Bailey,  44  S.W.2d 
9,  '32-9  Mo. '22— «3tate  ex  rel.  Dura- 
flor  Products  Co.  v.  Pearcy,  29  S. 
W.2d  83,  32.5  Mo.  835— Chilton  v. 
Chilton,  App.,  297  S.W.  457. 

N.T. — Studebaker  .Corporation  of 
America  v.  Silverberg,  199  N.Y.S. 
190. 

Okl. — Reinauer  v.  Davis,  130  P.2d 
91,  191  Okl.  366. 

Pa. — The  Maccabees  v.  Cappas,  43  A. 
2d  538,  157  Pa.Super.  481. 


R.I.— Si-ravo  v.  Whitman,  151  A.  893, 

51  R.L  102. 
Tex. — Smith    v.    Blancas,     Civ.App., 

87     S.W.2d    781,     error    refused— 

Gaulden   v.   Antone,    Civ.App.,    279 

iS.W.    560 — Chapman    v.    Sunshine 

Oil   Corporation,    Civ.App.,    256    S. 

W.  327— Moulton  v.  Deloach,  Civ. 

App.,  253  S.W.  303. 
33  C.J.  p  1150  notes  8,  9. 
Abandonment  of  cross  action 

Where  cross  action  was  set  up  in 
original  ,  and  second  amended  an- 
swer, but  not  mentioned  in  subse- 
quent amended  answers,  such  cross 
action  was  abandoned,  and  judgment 
in  favor  of  cross  defendant  on  his 
cross  action  was  erroneous. — Hink- 
ley  v.  Brewer,  Tex.CivJV.pp.,  274  S.W. 
227. 
Overpayments 

In  an  action  for  the  balance  due 
on  the  purchase  price  of  property,  or 
on  a  contract,  defendant  cannot  re- 
cover an  overpayment  which  the 
evidence  shows  he  made,  where  he 
has  not  interposed  a  counterclaim 
or  asked  for  such  relief. 
Ky. — Runyon  v.  Runyon,  251  S.W. 

173,  199  Ky.  878. 
Tex.— Branch  v.  Smith,  Civ.App..  245 

S.W.  799. 

Pailure  of  plaintiff  to  appear  at 
the  trial  does  not  warrant  affirma- 
tive relief  in  favor  of  defendant 
where  there  is  no  plea  or  other  de- 
fense by  defendant  in  the  nature  of 
a  cross  action  against  plaintiff. — 
Ellard  v.  Simpson,  142  S.E.  855,  166 
Ga.  278. 
33  C.J.  p  1150  note  8  [a]. 

Alternative  reconveutional  demands 
Where  particular  relief  in  recon- 
vention  is  demanded  by  defendant 
only  in  .the  event  that  certain  other 
relief  is  decreed,  and  such  other  re- 
lief is  not  decreed,  the  reccmventdon- 
al  demands  of  defendant,  made  in 
the  alternative,  necessarily  fall  and 
drop  out  of  the  xjase.— Tyson  v.  Surf 
Oil  Co.,  196  So.  336,  195  La.  2-48. 

4&    111.— Whitaker    Paper     Co.     v., 

116 


Galesburg  Mail  Co.,  238  Hl.App. 
600. 

Ind. — Johnson  v.  Collins,  1  Blackf. 
166. 

Tex. — Dean  v.  Maxwell,  Civ.App.,  173 
S.W.2d  246— Scales  r.  Lindsay, 
Civ.App.,  43  S.W.2d  286,  error  dis- 
missed. 

Wash. — City  Bond  &  Share  v.  Kle- 
ment,  5  P.2d  523,  165  Wash.  408. 

Wis.— Marshall  v.  Marshall,  284  N. 
W.  541,  230  Wis.  504. 

33  C.J.  p  1151  note  16. 

49.  Tex. — R.    R.     Stolley    Corpora- 
tion   of   Austin,    Tex.,    v.    Quebe- 
deaux,    Civ.App.,    70    S.W.2d    266, 
error  dismissed. 

50.  Ky. — Wagner  v.  Swoope,   64   S. 
W.2d  395,  246  Ky.  19. 

Mo. — Missouri  Lumber  &  Mining  Co. 
v.  Hassell,  298  S.W.  47 — Brown  v. 
Wilson,  App.,  131  S.W.2d  848, 
quashed  on  other  grounds  State 
ex  rel.  Brown  v.  Hughes,  137  'S.W. 
2d  54*4,  345  Mo.  958*. 
Mont — Mather  v.  Musselman,  278 

P.  998,  85  Mont.  552. 
Okl.— Watts  v.  Meriwether,   84  P.2d 

643,  184  Okl.  (32. 
S.C.— Little  v.  Rivers,  185  S.E.  174, 

180  S.C.  149. 

Tex — Bustamante    v.    Haynes,    Civ. 
App.,    55    S.W.2d    137,    error    dis- 
missed— Ruby  v.   Davis,   Civ.App., 
277  S.W.  430. 
33  C.J.  p  1150  note  10. 
Accounting- 

Defendant  may  be  entitled  to  an 
accounting,  notwithstanding  the  ab- 
sence of  a  demand  therefor  in  his 
pleading,  where  the  circumstances 
warrant  an  accounting  and  defend- 
ant has  been  led  to  believe  through- 
out the  trial  that  an  accounting 
would  be  had. — Pearson  v.  Juarez, 
248  P.  278,  78  CaLApp.  122. 
Damages 

(1)  In  a  proper  case,  damages 
may  be  awarded  to  defendant  al- 
though he  has  not  specifically 
prayed  for  such  relief. 
ArK.— Albersen  v.  Klanke.  6  S.W.2d 
292,  177  Ark.  288. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  50 


ing  that  the  judgment  may  grant  to  defendant  any 
affirmative  relief  to  which  he  may  be  entitled.51 
Ordinarily  a  judgment  granting  defendant  affirma- 
tive relief  must  be  founded  on,  and  be  responsive 
to,  his  pleadings,  and  cannot  rest  on  the  pleading 
of  some  other  party;52  but  a  defendant  may  some- 
times have  affirmative  relief  against  a  codefendant 
notwithstanding  he  has  served  no  pleading  enti- 
tling him  to  such  relief,  where  the  facts  justifying 
such  relief  are  set  forth  in  the  complaint.53 

In  general,  any  affirmative  relief  to  a  defendant 
should  be  in  conformity  with  that  demanded  by 
him.54  The  prayer  for  relief,  however,  does  not 
necessarily  determine  the  relief  to  which  defendant 
is  entitled,55  and  under  some  circumstances  defend- 


ant's failure  to  ask  for  affirmative  relief  will  not 
preclude  final  adjudication  of  the  respective  rights 
of  the  parties.56 

§  50.    Limitation  and  Conformity  to  Is- 
sues 

Judgments  ordinarily  must  be  responsive  to  the  Is- 
sues presented  in  the  pleadings,  and  it  has  frequently 
been  held  that  Judgments  beyond  such  issues  are  void. 
The  issues  may  be  broadened  by  consent  of  the  parties, 
however,  in  which  case  the  judgment  may  embrace  the 
issues  actually  litigated. 

Judgments  must  be  responsive  to  the  issues  pre- 
sented in  the  pleadings  or  litigated  between  the  par- 
ties, and  issues  not  so  raised  may  not  be  deter- 
mined.57 Where  there  are  several  good  pleas  in 


Ind. — Yellow  Mfg.  Acceptance  Cor- 
poration v.  Linsky,  192  N.E.  715, 
99  Ind.App.  691. 

(2)  Defendant's  right  to  recover 
damages  may  be  settled  in  same  ac- 
tion in  which  plaintiff  asserts  right 
to  damages  against  defendant,  when 
both  claims  Involve  determination 
of  same  questions  of  fact  and  con- 
sideration of  same  evidence,  whether 
or  not  cross  action  is  involved. — Op- 
pie  v.  Bay,  195  N.B.  81,  208  Ind. 
450. 
Counterclaim  as  sole  defense 

Where  a  counterclaim  is  the  only 
defense  set  up,  a  judgment  for  de- 
fendant must  necessarily  allow  the 
counterclaim. — Wise  v.  Rosenblatt, 
12  N.Y.S.  288,  16  Daly  496. 

51.  N.Y. — Clegg  v.  American  News- 
paper Union,   60  How.Pr.  498,  af- 
firmed 82  Hun  162,  66  HowJPr.  411. 

33  C.J.  p  1151  note  15. 

52.  Tex.— Lee  v.   British  &  Ameri- 
can- Mortg.  Co.,   40  S.W.   1041,    16 
Tez.Civ.App.  671. 

83  C.J.  p  1151  note  14. 

53.  S.C. — Toumans  v.  Toumans.  121 
S.E.  674,  128  S.C.  31. 

admission    of    allegations    of    com- 
plaint 

In  action  by  insured  on  policy  con- 
taining5 provision  that  any  loss 
was  payable  to  mortgagee  as  his 
interest  might  appear,  mortgagee, 
who  was  made  party  defendant  and 
filed  answer  admitting  allegations  of 
complaint,  was  entitled  to  propor- 
tionate share  of  insurer's  liability 
notwithstanding  his  failure  to  file 
affirmative  pleading  or  prayer  for 
affirmative  relief,  since  judgment 
was  bar  to  any  further  right  mort- 
gagee .  might  assert — Commercial 
Union  Fire  Ins.  Co.  of  New  York  v. 
Wade,  8  N.E.2d  1009,  103  Ind.App. 
461. 

54.  La.— Succession     of     Markham, 
156  So.  225,  180  La.  211. 

Tex. — Wilkirson  v.  Yarbrough,  Com. 
App.f  257  S.W.  535— Golden  West 


Oil  Co.  No.  1  v.  Golden  Rod  Oil 
Co.  No.  1,  Civ.App.,  285  S.W.  631, 
affirmed  Golden  Hod  Oil  Co.  No.  1 
v.  Golden  West  Oil  Co.  No.  1,  Com. 
App.,  293  S.W.  167. 
Failure  to  demur  to  or  answer 

counterclaim 

Plaintiff,  although  not  having  filed 
any  demurrer  or  answer  to  counter- 
claim, could  attack  those  portions  of 
final  decree  granting  relief  on  coun- 
terclaim beyond  scope  of  the  plead- 
ings, since,  even  if  counterclaim 
had  been  taken  for  confessed,  it 
would  not  support  a  decree  beyond 
scope  of  relief  sought. — Medlinsky 
v.  Premium  Cut  Beef  Co.,  57  N.B.2d 
31,  317  Mass.  25. 
Possession  granted  tinder  prayer  for 

general  relief 

Defendant's  claim  of  ownership  of 
house,  with  prayer  for  general  re- 
lief, was  held  sufficient  to  sustain 
Judgment  for  its  possession. — Olcott 
v.  Reese,  Tex.Civ.App.,  291  S.W.  261. 
In  ejectment,  where  the  court  finds 
for  defendant  on  all  the  issues  a 
decree  should  be  entered  as  prayed 
in  the  answer. — Chouteau  Land  & 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Chrisman,  72  S.W. 
1062,  172  Mo.  610— 19"  C.J.  P  1210 
note  25. 

55.  Mo. — Eckhardt    v.    Bock,    App., 
159  S.W.2d  395. 

T.Y. — Home   Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Klein. 
25  N.Y.S.2d  215. 

56.  Wash. — Pratt  v.  Rhodes,   253  P. 
640,    142    Wash.    411,    reheard    256 
P.  503,  142  Wash.  411. 

57.  U.S. — Sylvan  Beach  v.  Koch,  C. 
CJLMo.,   140   F.2d  852— Deitrick  v. 
Standard   Surety   &   Casualty   Co. 
of   New   York,   C.C.A.Mass.,    90   P. 
2d   862,  affirmed   58   S.Ct.   696,   303 
TLS.   471,   82   L.Ed.    962,   rehearing 
denied  58   S.Ct.   948,   304  U.S.   588, 
82    L.Ed,    1548 — Goodrich    Transit 
Co.   v.  City  of  Chicago,   C.C.A.I1L, 
4  P.2d  636 — Ortlieb  v.  Baumer,  D. 

,  C.N.Y.,  6  F.Supp.  58. 
Ala.— Pridgen  v.   Shadgett,   12   So.2d 
395,    244   Ala.   167— Alabama  Pow- 

117 


er  Co.  v.  Owens,  181  So.  283,  236 
Ala.  96. 

Ariz. — Wall  v.  Superior  Court  of 
Yavapai  County,  89  (P.2d  624,  53 
Ariz.  344, 

Ark.— Evans  v.  U.  S.  Anthracite  Coal 
Co.,  21  !S.W.2d  952,  180  Ark.  578. 

CaL — Ayoob  v.  Ayoob,  App.,  168 
P.2d  462— Hyde  v.  Hagen,  App., 
161  P.2d  242— Berg  v.  Berg,  132  P. 
2d  871.  56  Cal.App.2d  4-95— Wallace 
v.  Otis,  119  «P.2d  195,  47  Cal.App.2d 
814— Dreifus  v.  Marx,  104  P.2d 
10SO,  40  Cal.App.2d  461— Overell  v. 
Overell.  64  »P.2d  483,  18  Cal.App.2d 
•499. 

Conn. — Spitz  v.  Abrams,  20  A.2d  616, 
128  Conn.  121 — Hill  v.  Employers' 
Liability  Assur.  Corporation,  188 
A.  277.  122  Conn.  193— O'Hara  v. 
Hartford  Oil  Heating  Co.,  138  A. 
458,  106  Conn.  468. 

Fla. — Gruber  v.  Cobey,  12  So.2d  461, 

152  Fla.  591— East  Coast  Stores  v. 
Cuthbert,  133  So.  863,  101  Pla.  25. 

Hawaii. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Pires 
v.  Pires,. 29  Hawaii  849,  852. 

Idaho.— Nielson  v.  Garrett,  43  P.2d 
380,  55  Idaho  240— Angel  v.  Mellen, 
285  P.  461,  48  Idaho  750. 

Ind. — Old  First  Nat,  Bank  &  Trust 
Co.  of  Fort  Wayne  v.  Snouffier,  192 
N.E.  369,  99  Ind.App.  325— Fox  v. 
Wallace,  151  N.E.  835,  88  Ind.App. 
235. 

Iowa. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Ray- 
burn  v.  Maher,  288  N.W.  136,  142, 
227  Iowa  274 — Bennett  v.  Green- 
wait,  286  N.W.  722,  226  Iowa  1113 
— Wagner  v.  Northern  Securities 
Co.,  284  N.W.  461,  226  Iowa  568 
—Fidelity  &  Casualty  Co.  of  New 
York  v.  Bank  of  Plymouth.  237 
N.W.  234,  213  Iowa  1058. 

Kan.— Penn .  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Tittel,  111  P.2d  1116,  153  Kan. 
530,  rehearing  denied  114  P.2d  312, 

153  Kan.  7'47 — Leshure  v.  Zumalt, 
100  P.2d  643,  151  Kan.  737— Baird 
v.  Bureman,  26  P.2d  272,  138  Kan. 
381 — Devlin  v.  City  of  Pleasanton, 
288  P.  595,  130  Kan.  766 — Herring 
v.  Blue  Mound  Mining  Co.,  257  P. 
955,  124  Kan.  171. 


§  50 


JUDGMENTS 


49    O.J.S. 


bar  to  the  whole  cause  of  action,  plaintiff  cannot 
recover  unless  he  succeeds  on  all  the  issues.58  A 
judgment  should  not  limit  rights  of  the  parties 
which  are  not  involved  in  the  action  and  which  may 
arise  or  be  interfered  with  in  the  future,  especially 
when  uncertainty  or  confusion  would  result;^  and 
if,  under  the  pleadings,  the  court  is  without  juris- 
diction to  determine  particular  issues,  it  is  without 
jurisdiction  to  reserve  such  issues  for  future  deter- 
mination.60 


A  judgment  on  issues  not  made  by  the  pleadings 
is  at  least  erroneous,  and  may  be  set  aside  or  re- 
versed in  a  proper  proceeding  for  that  purpose  ;W 
but  many  cases  go  further,  and  hold  that  judg- 
ments based  on  issues  not  made  by  the  pleadings  or 
litigated  by  the  parties  are  coram  non  judice  and 
void,  at  least  in  so  far  as  they  go  beyond  such  is- 
sues,'62 on  the  theory  that  a  court  has  no  jurisdic- 
tion to  pass  on  questions  not  submitted  to  it  for 


Ky.— Newsom  v.  Damron,  193  S.W.2d 

643. 

Mich.— -Ward  v.  Hunter  Machinery 
Co.,  248  N.W.  864.  26i3  Mich.  445. 
Mo.— Brandt  v.  Fanners  Bank  of 
Chariton  County,  182  S.W.2d  281, 
353  Mo.  25$ — Brown  v.  Wilson,  155 
$.W.2d  176,  348  Mo.  658— In  re 
Ermeling's  Estate,  119  S.W.2d  755, 
transferred,  see,  App.,  131  S.W.2d 
912 — Unrig  v.  Hill-Behan  Lumber 
Co.,  110  SS.W.2d  412,  341  Mo.  851— 
Rains  v.  Moulder,  90  S.W.2d  81, 
3.38  Mo.  275 — Davis  v.  Johnson,  58 
S.W.2d  746,  332  Mo.  417.  trans- 
ferred, see,  APP.,  47  S.W.2d  121— 
Friedel  v.  Bailey,  44  S.W.2d  9, 
329  Mo.  22— Congregation  B'Nai 
Abraham  v.  Arky,  20  S.W.2d  899, 
323  Mo.  776— Ex  parte  Fowler,  275 
S.W  529,  310  Mo.  339— Smith  v. 
Smith,  App.,  192  S.W.2d  691,  fol- 
lowed in  192  S.W.2d  700— Riney  v. 
Riney,  App..  117  5S.W.2d  698— 
Burns  v.  Ames  Realty  Co.,  App.,  31 
S.W.2d  274— Fielder  v.  Fielder. 
App.,  6  S.W.2d  968. 
Mont.— Wallace  v.  Goldberg,  231  OP. 

56,  72  Mont.  234. 
Neb. — Bowman    v.    Cobb,    258    N.W. 

535,  128  Neb.  28-9. 

NT. — Helfhat  v.  Whitehouse,  179 
N.E.  493,  258  N.T.  274— Interna- 
tional Photo  Recording  Machines 
v.  Microstat  Corp.,  56  N.T.S.2d 
277,  269  App.Div.  485— In  re  Goe- 
bel's  Estate,  33  N.Y.S.2d  549,  263 
App.Div.  5'1 6— People  v.  Ribas,  276 
N.T.S.  551,  153  Misc.  703. 
Ohio.— Licht  v.  Woertz,  167  NJ3.  614 

32  Ohio  App.  HI. 

Or.— Reed  v.  Hollister,  212  P.  367,  106 

Or    407,  error  dismissed  Hollistei 

v.  Reed,  44  S.Ct.  333,  264  U.S.  599 

68  L.Ed.  869. 

Pa.— Bradford  Gasoline  Co.  v.  Han 

ley  Co.,  173  A.  401,  815  Pa.  441. 
S.C.— Parker    Peanut   Co.   v.    Felder 

34    S.E.2d    488,    207    S.C.   6-3. 
S.D.-^Severson    v.    Bide,    216    N.W 
581,  52  S.D.  20 — Deming  v.  Nelson 
210  N.W.  726,  50  S.D.  .484. 
Tex. — Price  v.   Seiger,   Com.App.,   4 
S.W.2d  729— De  Walt  v.  Universa 
Film  Exchanges,   Civ. App.,   132   S 
W.2d   421,    error   dismissed,   Judg- 
ment   correct — Lewis    v.    Gamble 
Civ.App.,    -113    S.W.2d    659— Texas 
&  N.  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  Civ.App 
101  S.W.2d  640,  error  dismissed— 
Owen  v.  King,  Civ-App.,  84  S.W.2 


743,  reversed  on  other  grounds  111 
S.W.2d  695,  130  Tex.  614,  114  A. 
L.R.  859— Mutual  Life  Ins.  Ass'n 
v.  Smelley,  Civ.App.,  68  S.W.2d 
1106— American  Rio  Grande  Land 
&  Irrigation  Co.  v.  Bellman,  Civ. 
App.,  272  S.W.  550. 
Va.— Drewry  v.  Doyle,  20  S.E.2d  54-8, 
179  Va.  715. 


Wash.— Beadle    v.    Barta,    123    P.2d 
761,  13  Wash.2d  67. 
C.J.  p  798  note  65—19  C.J.  p  1210 
note   21 — 33  C.J.  p  1151  notes  17, 
19—42  C.J.  p  1287  note  14. 
"There  is   no  principle  better  es- 
tablished than  what  is  not  juridical- 
y    presented    cannot    be    juridically 
lecided." — Cooke    v.    Cooke,    248    P. 
13,  104,  67  Utah  371. 

Character  of  lane 

Where  pleadings  do  not  raise  is- 
sue, court  should  not  determine 
whether  or  not  lane  over  which 
>laintin?s  claim  means  of  access  is 
jublic  or  private.— ^Lathrop  v.  Gary, 
232  N.W.  $97,  202  Wis.  237. 

Failure  to  demur  will  not  justify 
judgment  on  issue  not  Within  plead- 
ing.— Farnham  v.  Schreiber,  149  A. 
393,  111  Conn.  38. 
Immaterial  or  unsupported  issues 


(1)  The  court  may  ignore  an  im- 
material   issue    in    rendering    judg- 
ment—Walton   v.    Stinson,    Tex.Civ 
App.,   140   S.W.2d  497,  error  refused. 

(2)  In    rendering    judgment    the 
court  may  ignore  an  issue  not  sup- 
ported  by    evidence. — Goff    v.    Jane 
way,   99   S.W.  -602,   30  Ky.L.   705— -28 
C.J.  p  1056  note  55. 

Irrelevant  abstract  queries 

Judgments    may    not    be    founded 
on   issues   outside   the   pleadings   in 
answer  to   solicitation  on  irrelevan 
abstract  legal  queries  propounded  bs 
the    parties    and    argued    in    thei 
briefs.— Raymond     v.      State     Clvi 
Service  Commission,  32  P.2d  331,  10  * 
Colo.  4'58. 

Scope  of  InjTULctive  relief 

In  suit  for  injunction,  growing  ou 
of  labor  dispute,  as  defined  in  stat 
ute,  no  acts  should  be  enjoined  oth 
er  than  those  mentioned  in  the  com 
plaint. — Boise  Street  Car  Co.  v.  Vi 
Avery,  103  P.2d  1107,  61  Idaho  502. 

58.    Ala. — Horan  v.  Gray  &  Dudle 

118 


Hardware  Co.,  48  So.  1029,  159  Ala. 

159. 

3  C.J.  p  1168  note  31. 
9.    Cal.— Cameron  v.  Feather  River 

Forest    Homes,    33    P.2d    884,    189 

CaLApp.  373. 

60.  U.S.— Osage  Oil  &  Refining  Co, 
v.   Continental  Oil  Co.,   C.C.A.Okt, 

34  F.2d  585. 

61.  Conn.— Shaw  v.    Spelke,    147   A. 
675,  110  Conn.  20'8. 

d. — Fisher  v.    Rosander,    151   N.E. 

12,  84  Ind.App.  694. 
owa.— Corpus    Juris    cited   in,   Ray- 
burn  v.  Maher,  288  N.W.  136,  142. 

•227  Iowa  274. 
tfeb. — Green   v.   Axtell   Lumber  Co., 

-213   N.W.    401,    116   Neb.    603. 
Okl. — Bishop  v.  Franks,  107  P.2d  358, 

188   OkL   196 — Holshouser  v.   Hol- 

shouser,  26  P.2d  189,  16-6  Okl.  45. 
Tex.— National   Union   Fire   Ins.   Co. 

of    Pittsburgh    v.    Richards,    Civ. 

App.,    278    -S.W.    488— Williams    v. 

Borchers,  Civ.App.,  244  S.W.  1053. 
33  C.J.  P  1152  note  21. 

62.  U.S. — Corpus     Juris     cited     In 
Osage  Oil  &  Refining  Co.  v.  Con- 
tinental  Oil  Co.,   C.'C.A.Okl.,   34   F. 
2d  585,  588. 

Cal.— .Wallace  v.  Otis,  119  P.2d  195, 
47  Cal.App.2d  814. 

Kan. — Southern  Kansas  Stage  Lines 
Co.  v.  Webb,  41  P:2d  1025,  141 
Kan.  476. 

Ky.— Covington  Trust  Co.  of  Cov- 
ington  v.  Owens,  129  S.W.2d  18-6, 
278  Ky.  695— Corpus  Juris  cited  in 
Dotson  v.  People's  Bank,  27  S.W. 
2d  -673,  674,  234  Ky.  138— Lincoln 
County  Board  of  Education  v. 
Board  of  Trustees  of  Stanford 
Graded  Common  School  Dist,  7 
S.W.2d  499,  225  Ky.  21. 

Mich. — Hartley  v.  A.  I.  Rodd  (Lum- 
ber Co.,  276  N.W.  712,  '2-S2  Mich. 
652. 

Mo.— Riley  v.  La  Font,  174  S.W.2d 
S57— Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Weath- 
erford  v.  Spiritual  Christian  Un- 
ion Church,  163  S.W.Sd  916,  918— 
Brown  v.  Wilson,  155  -S.W.2d  176, 
348  Mo.  -658— State  ex  rel.  Fidelity 
&  Deposit  Co.  of  Maryland  v.  Al- 
len, 85  S.W.2d  455— State  ex  reL 
Gatewood  v.  Trimble,  62  S.W.2d 
756,  833  Mo.  207 — -Button  v.  Ander- 
son, 31  S.W.2d  1026,  3-2*  Mo.  304 
— Hecfcer  v.  Bleish,  3  S.W.2d  1008, 
$19  Mo.  149— Brandt  v.  Farmers 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  51 


decision.68  If  the  excessive  part  of  the  judgment 
cannot  be  readily  separated  from  that  which  is  with- 
in the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  by  virtue  of  the 
pleadings  and  proof,  the  entire  judgment  has  been 
held  to  be  void.64 

Issues  broadened  by  consent.  Parties  may,  if 
they  so  elect,  depart  from  the  issues  made  by  the 
pleadings,  and  try  other  questions  relating  to  the 
merits  of  the  controversy  by  consent  or  acquies- 
cence, and  in  such  cases  the  judgment  is  regular 
and  binding  on  them,65  the  court  treating  as  hav- 
ing been  made  the  amendment  which  ought  to  have 
been  made  conforming  the  pleadings  to  the  proof,66 
notwithstanding  no  formal  amendment  of  the  plead- 
ings has  been  filed;67  but  a  mere  agreement  that 
a  pleading  shall  be  amended  in  a  certain  particular 
does  not  alter  the  issues  until  the  amendment  is 
in  fact  made.68 

When  an  issue  is  tried  which  is  not  within  the 
pleadings,  no  duty  rests  on  the  court  to  render  a 
judgment  thereon,  and  a  refusal  or  failure  to  do 
so  is  not  error.69  Mere  stipulations  as  to  the  facts 
of  a  case,  or  the  evidence  of  facts,  cannot  make  a 


case  broader  than  it  appears  by  the  allegations  of 
the  pleadings,  and  do  not  entitle  a  party  to  any  re- 
lief beyond  that  to  which  the  averments  entitle 
him.70  Evidence  which,  although  received  without 
objection,  has  no  legitimate  relation  to  the  issues 
which  form  the  basis  of  the  action,  or  is  in  abso- 
lute conflict  with  the  cause  of  action  which  is  set 
out  in  the  complaint,  may  not  be  deemed  to  sup- 
port a  judgment  at  variance  with  the  pleadings.71 

§  51.    Applications  of  Rules  in  General 

a.  Parties 

b.  Property  affected 

c.  Quieting  title 

d.  Other  applications 

a.  Parties 

(1)  In  general 

(2)  Personal  or  representative  capacity 

(1)  In  General 

The  judgment  must  follow  the  pleadings  and  proof 
with  respect  to  the  particular  plaintiffs  and  defendants 
for  and  against  whom  It  Is  rendered. 


Bank  of  Chariton  County,  App., 
177  S.W.2d  667,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  182  S.W.2d  281,  353  Mo. 
259— Dickey  v.  Dickey,  App.,  132 
S.W.2d  1026 — Schell  v.  F.  E.  Ran- 
som Coal  &  Grain  Co.,  App.,  79  S. 
W.2d  543 — Texas  Empire  Pipe 
Line  Co.  v.  Stewart,  App.,  35  S. 
W.2d  627,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  55  S.W.2d  283,  331  Mo. 
'525 — Burns  v.  Ames  Realty  Co., 
App.,  '31  S.W.Sd  274 — Owens  v.  Mc- 
Cleary,  App.,  273  S.W.  145 — Raney 
v.  Home  Ins.  fio.,  246  S.W.  57,  213 
Mo.App.  1. 

!Nev. — Schultz  v.  Mexican  Dam  & 
Ditch  Co.,  224  P.  804,  47  Nev.  453. 

2O. — Trenton  Trust  Co.  v.  Gane,  6 
A.2d  112,  125  N.J.Bd.  389,  affirmed 
8  A.2d  708,  126  N.J.EQ.  273— Hacfc- 
ensack  Trust  Co.  v.  Kelly,  180  A. 
621,  118  N.J.Eq.  587,  affirmed  187 
A.  195,  120  N.J.Ea.  596. 

Okl.— Hinkle  v.  Jones,  -66  P.2d  1073, 
ISO  Okl.  17 — Fuqua  v.  Watson,  46 
P.2d  486,  172  Okl.  624-Oity  of 
Seminole  v.  Fields,  43  P.2d  64,  172 
Okl.  167 — Electrical  Research 
Products  Y.  Haniotis  Bros.,  39  P. 
2d  42,  170  Okl.  150— Winters  v. 
Birch,  36  P.2d  907,  169  Okl.  237-^ 
State  ex  rel.  Shull  v.  Moore,  27  P. 
2d  1048,  167  Okl.  28— Henson  v. 
Oklahoma  State  Bank,  23  P.2d  709, 

165  Okl.    1— Wright    v.    Farmers' 
Nat  Bank  of  Oklahoma  City,  243 
P.    512,    116    Okl.    74— Hoffman   v. 
Webb,  -240   P.   104,    113   Okl.   150— 
Le  Clate  v.  Calls  Him,  233  P.  1087, 

166  Oia  247. 

Or.— Doan  v.  Dean,  300  P.  1027,  136 
Or  £94,  8-6  ULL.R.  79. 


Tex — Edinburg  Irr.  Co.  v.  Ledbetter, 

Civ.App.,    247    S.W.    335,    modified 

on   other   grounds,    Com. App.,    286 

S.W.  185. 

Wis. — Nehring    v.    Niemerowicz,    276 

N.W.  325,  226  Wis.  285. 
33  C.J.  p  1152  note  22—51  C.J.  p  270 

note  26. 

Question  within  court's  general  Ju- 
risdiction 

A  judgment  which  determines  ques- 
tions not  within  the  court's  juris- 
diction, because  not  in  issue,  is  to 
that  extent  void,  although  the  ques- 
tion decided  may  be  within  the  gen- 
eral jurisdiction  of  the  court — Hall- 
gren  v.  Williams,  Neb.,  20  N.W.2d 
499—Patersen  v.  Dethlefs,  2*3  N.W. 
155,  139  Neb.  572. 

63.  Conn. — Corpus    Juris     cited    in 
Spitz  v.  Abrams,  20  A.2d  $16.  6i'7, 
128  Conn.  121. 

33  C.J.  p  1153  note  25. 

64.  OkL— Central    Nat    Oil    Co.    v. 
Continental  Supply  Co.,  249  P*  347, 
119  Okl.  190. 

65.  CaL — Drullinger      v.       Hrskine, 
App.,  163  P.2d  48. 

Conn. — Corpus'  Juris  cited  in  Spitz 
v.  Abrams,  20  A.2d  616,  617,  128 
Conn.  121. 

Ga. — Southern  (Lumber  Co.  v.  Ed- 
wards, 117  S.E.  252,  30  Ga.App. 
223. 

Ky. — Lodge  v.  Williams,  243  S.W. 
1011,  195  Ky.  773. 

La.— W.  J.  &  C.  Sherrouse  v.  Phenix, 
128  So.  536,  14  La.App.  629. 

Mont — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Wal- 
lace v.  Goldberg,  231  P.  56,  57,  72 
Mont  234. 

119 


Neb. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Clark 

v.    Clark,    297   N.W.    661,    $64,   139 

Neb.  446. 

KM.— Davis  v.  Savage,  158  P.2d  851. 
N.T.— Claris    v.    Richards,    183    NJBL 

904,  260  N.T.  419.  ' 

Tenn. — East  Lake  Lumber  Box  Co. 

v.  Simpson,  5  Tenn. App.  51. 
33  C.J.  p  1154  note  56. 
Injection  of  issue  at  own  peril 

Party  who  injects  into  action  is- 
sues not  covered  by  pleadings  does 
so  at  peril  of  any  judgment  he  may 
obtain.— Perez  v.  Wilson,  260  P.  838, 
8-6  C&LApp.  28«. 

68;    U.S. — Reynolds   v.    Stockton,    11 

S.Ct    773,    140    U.S.    254,    35    LJEd. 

464,  27  Abb.N.Cas.,N.Y.,  112. 
Neb. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Clark 

v.   Clark,    297   N.W.    661,    664,   139 

Neb.  446. 
N.M.— In  re  Field's  Estate,  -60  P.2d 

945,  40  N.M.  423. 

67.  OkL — Berglan  v.  Kuhlman,  T7  P. 
2d  47,  182  Okl.  168. 

68.  N.J. — Jones  v.  Davenport  17  A. 
570,  45  N.J.Eq.  77,  reversed  on  oth- 
er   grounds   19    A.    22,    46   N.J.Eq. 
237. 

69.  Neb. — Bowman  v.  Cobb,  253  N. 
W.  535,  128  Neb.  289% 

70.  U.S. — Corpus     Juris     cited     in 

Walling     v.      Paramount-Richards 
Theatres,   D.C.La.,  61  F.Supp.  290, 
304. 
CaL— Hicks  v.  Murray,  43  CaL  515. 

71.  CaL — Gwinn  v.  Goldman,  134  P.  • 
2d  915,  54  CaLApp.2d  393. 


§  51 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


The  judgment  must  correspond  with  the  plead- 
ings and  proof  with  respect  to  the  parties  for  and 
against  whom  it  is  rendered.72  A  judgment  for 
plaintiff  alone  cannot  be  sustained  where  the  com- 
plaint or  proof  shows  that  he  is  not  the  sole  owner 
of  the  claim  or  property  involved,  but  that  others 
are  joint  owners  thereof.73  A  judgment  against 
a  defendant  concerning  whom  no  allegations  are 
made  in  the  declaration  or  complaint,  or  against 
whom  no  relief  or  judgment  is  sought,  ordinarily 


is  unauthorized.74  Where  the  complaint  asks  dif- 
ferent relief  as  against  the  different  defendants,  or 
alleges  only  a  partial  liability  on  the  part  of  each 
of  them,  there  cannot  be  a  general  judgment  against 
one  or  all  of  them  for  the  entire  claim  or  demand7^ 
A  judgment  against  a  principal  may  be  proper  on 
allegations  and  proof  of  acts  of  his  agent;76  but 
such  a  judgment  cannot  be  rendered  in  the  absence 
of  any  proof  of  the  alleged  agent's  authority.77 

Under  appropriate  pleadings  and  prayers,  relief 


73.  Ala.— Milbra  v.  Sloss-Shefneld 
Steel  &  Iron  Qo.,  62  So.  176,  182 
Ala.  622,  46  L.R.A.,N.S,,  274. 

111.— Russell  v.  Ortseifen,  54  N.E.2d 
612,  322  IlLApp.  695 — Thomas  v, 
Morris,  41  N.E.2d  990,  314  Ill.App. 
570. 

Iowa, — O.  H.  Dunlap  &  Son  v.  Marek, 
209  N.W.  295. 

Ky. — Universal  Credit  Co.  v.  Hib- 
bard,  117  S.W.2d  583,  273  Ky.  -507 
— Barnett  v.  Robinson,  79  S.W.2d 
699,  2-5S  Ky.  2C5. 

Mont. — Montana  Auto  Finance  Cor- 
poration v.  British  &  Federal  Un- 
derwriters of  Norwich  Union  Fire 
Ins.  Soc.,  232  P.  198,  72  Mont  -69, 
36  A.L.R.  1495. 

N.J.— Kienle  v.  MacFulton,  Inc.,  174 

A.  349,  12  N.J.Misc.  697. 

N.Y.— Kittredge    v.    Grannis,    155   N. 

B.  93,    244    N.T.    182— Wheeler   v. 
Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  York,  263 
N.Y.S.    272,    237    App.Div.    765,   re- 
versed on  other  grounds  IS 8  N.R 
148,  263  N.Y.  34. 

Or.— Chagnot  v.  Labbe,  69  P.2d  949, 

157  Or.  2'80. 

Tex. — Gillette  Motor  Transport  Co. 
v.  Whitfteld,  Civ.App.,  160  S.W.2d 
290 — Travelers  Ins.  Co.  v.  Key, 
Civ.App.,  146  S.W.2d  £13— Hous- 
ton Oxygen  Co.  v.  Davis,  Civ.App., 
145  S.W.2d  300.  reversed  on  other 
ground*  161  S.W.2d  474,  339  Tex.  1, 
140  A.L.R.  868—- Corpus  Juris  cited 
la  Eil wards  v.  Hatch,  Civ.App.,  106 
S.W.2d  741,  742— Superior  Fire 
•  Ins.  Co.  v.  C.  S.  Lee  Grain  &  Eleva- 
tor Co.,  Civ.App.,  261  S.W.  212— 
Hardin  v.  Palm,  Civ.App.,  253  S. 
W.  94S— Mullin  v.  Nash-El  Paso 
Motor  Co.,  Civ.App.,  2*0  S.W.  472. 
Utah. — Garner  v.  Anderson,  243  P. 

-496,  67  Utah  653. 

33  C.J.  p  1154  note  31,  p  1200  note  19. 
Impropiioty  of  Joint  Judgment 

In  an  action  against  a  bank, 
brought  Jointly  by  two  persons  for 
whom  money  jhad  been  deposited  in 
trust,  where  a  judgment  for  plain- 
tiffs Jointly  would  not  accord  with 
the  proof,  the  fact  that  the  bank  at 
the  trial  made  no  objection  to  the 
Joint  action  cannot  enable  the  court 
to  enter  a  Judgment  which  the  law 
does  not  warrant. — Ellison  v.  New 
Bedford  Five  Cents  Sav.  Bank,  130 
Mass.  48. 


Failure  of  oodefendant  to  file  coun- 
terclaim 

Where  only  one  of  two  codefend- 
ants  has  filed  counterclaim.  Judg- 
ment for  both  defendants  on  coun- 
terclaim is  error  as  to  defendant 
who  did  not  file  any  counterclaim. — 
C.  I.  T.  Corporation  v.  Watkins,  181 
S.E.  270,  208  N.C.  448. 
"Hairs'*  as  Including  "descendants" 

A  pleading  seeking  to  bring  In 
"heirs"  of  certain  persons  as  a  class 
was  held  sufficient  to  make  decree 
binding  on  descendants. — Swoope  T. 
Darrow,  188  So.  879,  £37  Ala.  602. 
Xntervener 

In  suit  to  recover  on  contract 
where  there  was  no  plea  of  inter- 
vention by  an  assignee  who  claimed 
a  sum  to  be  due  him  from  plaintiffs, 
judgment  in  favor  of  plaintiffs  and 
ordering  defendants  to  pay  inter- 
vener  and  deduct  the  amount  from 
that  due  plaintiffs  is  unsupported  by 
pleading. — Home  Ins.  Co.,  New  York, 
v.  Privttt,  Tex.Civ.App.,  120  S.W.2d 
294,  error  dismissed. 

Exemplary   damages  against  princi- 
pal or  sureties 

In  an  action  against  the  principal 
and  sureties  on  a  bond,  a  Judgment 
for  exemplary  damages  against  the 
principal  only  Is  not  erroneous  be- 
cause the  prayer  asked  such  damag- 
es against  principal  and  sureties, 
and  the  verdict  was  general,  where 
such  damages  could  not  be  had 
against  the  sureties. — Emerson  v 
Skidmore,  25  S.W.  671,  7  TexXJiv. 
App.  641. 

Municipal  officials 

Where  owner  of  land  taken  by  city 
brought  action  for  value  thereof 
against  city  officials  In  their  official 
capacity,  without  attempting  to 
state  cause  of  action  against  them 
as  individuals,  and  city  entered  liti- 
gation as  plaintiff  in  consolidated 
condemnation  proceeding,  Judgment 
against  city  and  officers  was  held 
valid  as  against  city,  but  void  on 
face  of  Judgment  roll  in  so  far  as 
purported  to  be  against  individual 
officers. — City  of  Seminole  v.  Fields, 
43  P.2d  64,  172  OkL  167. 

73.    CaL — -Woodson  v.  Torgerson,  291 

P.  663,  108  Cal.App.  386. 
133  O.J.  p  1154  note  33. 

120 


74.  Ohio.    Fourth   &   Central   Trust 
Co.  v.  Aker  Bros.,  177  N.B.  602,  S* 
Ohio  App.  247. 

Tex. — O'Brien  v.   Greene   Production 
Co.,    Civ.App.,     151     S.W.2d    900— 
Earnhardt  Development  Co.  v.  Ray, 
Civ.App.,  SI  S.W.2d  732. 
33  C.J.  p  11  ITS  note  37. 
Judgment  for  or  against  one  not  par* 

ty  see  supra  $28. 
Judgment    against    firm 

Where  individuals  of  firm  onljr 
were  sued,  and  cause  of  action  was 
not  alleged,  or  relief  sought,  against 
firm.  Judgment  against  the  firm  and 
individuals  as  partners,  as  well  as 
against  individuals,  was  unauthor* 
ized. — Lingwiler  v.  Anderson,  Tex* 
Civ.App.,  270  S.W.  1052. 

Husband's  Joinder  in  answer 

Where  defendant's  husband  Joined 
in  answering  suit  for  injuries,  it  was 
held  that  Judgment  might  be  ren- 
dered against  him,  although  no  relief 
was  asked  against  him  by  plaintiff. 
— Dickey  v.  Jackson,  Tex.Civ,App., 
293  S.W.  5*84,  reversed  on  other 
grounds,  Com.App.,  1  S.W.2d  577.  . 

75.  Neb.— Trester  v.  Pike,  S3  N.W* 
•676,  60  Neb.  510. 

33  C.J.  p  1155  note  34. 

Belief  soufflkt  only  la  alternative 

Where  Judgment  against  a  defend- 
ant  is  sought  only  in  the  event  it  is 
found  that  he  was  not  authorized  to 
represent  a  codefendant,  and  it  is 
found  that  he  had  such  authority, 
judgment  on  such  cause  of  action 
cannot  be  rendered  against  both  de- 
fendants.— Saner-Ragley  Lumber  Co. 
v.  Spivey,  Tex.Civ.App..  255  S.W.  193, 
judgment  modified  on  other  grounds 
Com.App.,  Spivey  y.  Saner-Ragley 
Lumber  Co.,  284  S.W.  210. 

Judgment   against   single   defendant 

held  proper 

A  complaint  alleging  performance 
of  services  for  defendant  and  others 
at  their  request  and  an  agreement 
of  defendant  to  .pay  therefor,  sup- 
ports a  Judgment  against  him  alone. 
— Delafleld  v.  San  'Francisco  <fe  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  40  P.  358,  5  Sal.tlnrep,  73L 

78.    Wash. — Reed   v.    National    Gro- 
cery Co.,  238  P.  890,  186  Wash.  7. 

77.     La. — Melde  Tile   Hoofing  Co.   v. 
Martinez,  139  So,  72,  19  LauApp.  91. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  51 


may  be  granted  to  one  defendant  as  against  a  co- 
defendant  ;7^  but  the  court  should  not  go  beyond 
the  pleadings  to  decree  relief  as  between  codefend- 
-ants.79 

The  principle  of  idem  sonans  may  be  invoked  to 
obviate  a  variance  in  the  names  of  the  parties,80 
and,  where,  on  an  inspection  of  the  whole  record, 
the  identity  of  the  parties  named  in  the  judgment 
and  the  pleading  is  clear,  the  apparent  variance  will 
be  held  to  be  a  clerical  misprision  and  immaterial, 
or  at  least  amendable,81  A  variance  may  be 
waived.82 

Ejectment..  A  judgment  in  ejectment  must  con- 
form to  the  pleadings  and  proofs  with  respect  to 
the  parties  involved.83  This  applies  where  the  ac- 
tion is  predicated  on  a  joint  demise,84  and  whether 
the  action  is  the  statutory  or  the  common-law  ac- 
tion of  ejectment.85  A  judgment  for  all  the  plain- 
tiffs cannot  be  given  where  the  proof  shows  title 
in  some,86  or  title  in  part  of  the  premises  in  one  ;87 
and  it  has  been  held  that,  if  the  proof  does  not 
show  a  joint  interest  in  all  who  join  as  plaintiffs, 
the  action  must  fail  as  to  all,88  although  it  has  al- 
so been  held  that  this  rule  does  not  apply  where  an 
equitable  defense  has  been  filed.89  In  some  juris- 
dictions, however,  a  failure  to  prove  title  as  to  some 
of  the  plaintiffs  will  not  prevent  a  recovery  by  the 


others  in  whom  title  is  shown.**  A  judgment  for 
plaintiffs  may  be  predicated  on  a  declaration  al- 
leging that  the  lessors  jointly  and  severally  de-- 
mised,  and  proof  of  a  tenancy  in  common,  there 
being  nothing  impracticable  in  joint  and  several  de- 
mises of  the  same  land.91 

A  judgment  may  be  rendered  for  or  against  one 
or  more  or  all  codefendants,  in  so  far  as  the  issues, 
proof,  and  record  may  justify  it92 

(2)  Personal  or  Representative  Capacity 

Judgment  for  or  against  a  party  ordinarily  must  be 
In  the  capacity,  personal  or  representative,  In  which  he 
sues  or  is  sued. 

Generally  the  judgment  should  be  for  and  against 
the  parties  in  the  capacity  in  which  they  sue  and 
are  sued.93  Where  an  individual  cause  of  action  is 
alleged,  but  plaintiff  describes  himself  as  suing  in 
a  representative  capacity,  he  may  nevertheless  re- 
cover in  his  individual  right  on  proof  of  the  indi- 
vidual cause  of  action  alleged,  the  allegations  as  to 
his  representative  character  being  rejected  as  mere 
descriptio  persons.94  Where,  however,  plaintiff  al- 
leges a  cause  of  action  accruing  to  him  only  in  a 
representative  capacity,  and  sues  in  such  a  capacity, 
proof  of  a  cause  of  action  belonging  to  him  as  an 
individual  is  a  variance,  amounting  to  a  failure  of 


78.  S.C. — Youmans  v.  Yownans,  121 
S.E.  674,  128  S.C.  31. 

Tex. — McCart  v.  Scruggs,  Civ.App., 
26  S.W.Sd  173,  modified  on  other 
grounds,  Com.App.,  '-28  S.W.2d  637. 

79.  Idaho— Van  -Sicklin  v.  Mayfield 
Land  &  Livestock  Co.,  241  P.  1022, 
41  Idaho  673. 

S.D.— Barry  v.  G.  OU  Wood  .Farm 
Mortg.  Co.,  211  N.W.  688,  50  S.D. 
652. 

Tex.— Galloway  v.  Moeser,  Civ.App., 
*2  S.W.2d  1067— Douglas  Oil  Co.  v. 
State  (California  Case),  Civ.App., 
70  S.W.2d  452— Western  Medical 
Arts  Bldg.  Corporation  v.  Bryan, 
Civ.App.,  5  S.W:2d  862,  error  dis- 
missed— San  Antonio  Southern  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Burd,  Civ.App.,  246  S.W. 
1060,  modified  on  other  grounds, 
Com.App.,  Burd  v.  San  Antonio 
Southern  R.  Co.,  -261  S.W.  1021. 
Absence  of  claim  of  adverse  title 

A  decree  was  held  void  In  so  far 
as  it  awarded  rights  in  land  to  some 
defendants  as  against  other  defend- 
ants, where  they  had  not  claimed 
any  title  adverse  to  each  other. — 
Deming  v.  Nelson,  210  N.W.  726,  50 
S.D.  484. 

80.  Iowa. — Mallory  v.  Riggs,   30  N. 
W.  S86,  76  Iowa  743. 

33  C.J.  p  1201  note  20. 

81.  OkL — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Sorter   v.    Newton   State   Bank  & 


Trust   Co.,    OkL,    295    P.    209,    210, 

147  Okl.  136. 

Tex. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Greene 
v.  Elerding,  Civ.App.,  £91  S.W. 
271,  272— Robinson  v.  Watkins, 
Civ.App.,  271  S.W.  288. 

Wash.— Wetzel  v.  Clise,   26«  P.   161, 

148  Wash.  75. 

33  C.J.  p  1201  note  21,  p  1168  note  28 

Cb]  (1). 

Entry  of  Judgment  in  correct  corpo- 
rate name 

If  corporation  were  known  by  an- 
other name  than  that  set  forth  in 
pleadings,  or  were  mistakenly  named 
in  pleadings,  there  being  no  corpo- 
ration of  the  name  set  forth,  Judg- 
ment against  corporation  in  its  cor- 
rect name  would  be  warranted. — 
Wichita  Falls  &  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Foreman,  Tex.Civ.App.,  109  S.W.2d 
549. 

82.  HL— Edwards    v.    Warner,     111 
ULApp.  -32. 

33  C.J.  p  1201  note  2*2. 

83.  Ga. — Shaddix  v.   Watson,    61   S. 
E.  828,  130  Ga.  764. 

19  C.J.  p  1209  note  20  [f]. 

94.    U.S.— Garrard  v.  Reynold,  Ky.,  4 

How.  123,  11  LuEd.  903. 
19  C.J.  p  1217  note  52%. 

85.     Ga. — Callaway  v.  Irvin,  51  S.B. 

477,  123  Ga.  344. 
19  C.J.  p  1217  note  52%. 

121 


86.  Cal. — Tormey  v.  Pierce,  42  CaL 
S3*. 

19  C.J.  p  1217  notes  62%,  «2%. 

87.  Mich.— Lynch  v.  Kirby,  36  Mich. 
238. 

SB.     Ga. — McQlamory   v.    McCormick, 

24  S.E.  941,  99  Ga.  14$. 
19  C.J.  p  1217  note  52#. 

89.  Ga. — Milner  v.  Vandivere,   12   S* 
E.  879,  86  Ga.  540. 

90.  111.— Whitham  v.  Ellsworth,  102 
N.E.  223,  259  lit  243. 

13  C.J.  p  1217  note  52%. 

91.  Ky. — Courtney  v.  Shropshire,   3 
Litt.  265. 

19  C.J.  p  1217  note  52*io. 

92.  Ala. — Simmons  v.  Sharpe,  42  <So. 
441,  148  Ala.  217. 

19  C.J.  p  1217  note  55. 

93.  U.S. — Gonzalez  v.  Roman  Cath- 
olic   Archbishop    of    Manila,    Phil. 
Islands,  50   S.Ct  5,   280  U.S.  1,   74 
L.Ed.  131. 

Minn. — Briggs  v.  Kennedy  Mayon- 
naise Products,  297  N.W.  -842,  209 
Minn.  312. 

Tex. — Rockhold  v.  Lucky  Tiger  Oil 
Co.,  Civ.App.,  4  S.W.2d  1046,  error 
dismissed. 

33  O.J.  p  1155  note  39. 

94.  U.S. — Newberry  v.  Robinson,   C. 
C.N.Y,,  36  F.  841. 

33  C.J.  p  1155- note  40. 


§  51 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


proof,  and  it  has  been  held  that  he  cannot  recov- 
er,95 Similarly,  where  plaintiff  sues  in  his  individu- 
1  al  capacity  and  the  proof  shows  a  right  to  recover 
only  in  a  representative  capacity,  it  has  been  held 
that  there  is  a  fatal  variance.96  A  defense  good 
against  plaintiff  in  his  individual  capacity  is  not 
necessarily  a  bar  to  a  judgment  for  plaintiff  in  his 
representative  capacity.97 

A  personal  judgment  against  a  defendant  who  is 
sued  only  in  his  official  or  representative  capacity,98 
or  a  judgment  against  one  in  his  representative  ca- 
pacity when  he  is  sued  only  in  his  individual  capac- 
ity,99 is  defective.  Where  the  pleadings  are  ambig- 
uous as  to  the  capacity  in  which  plaintiff  sues,  or 
defendant  is  sued,  the  theory  on  which  the  case  was 
tried  controls  the  judgment.1 

Executors  and  administrators.  It  has  been  held 
that,  if  an  executor  or  administrator  sues  as  such, 
he  cannot  recover  in  his  individual  right;2  but 
there  are  also  cases  in  which  an  individual  recovery 
by  one  who  sued  as  executor  or  administrator  has 
been  regarded  as  permissible.8  If  a  person  sues  in- 
dividually, he  cannot  recover  as  executor  or  admin- 


istrator.4 If  an  action  is  brought  against  a  person 
individually,  judgment  cannot  be  rendered  against 
him  as  the  personal  representative  of  another.5 
Similarly,  as  a  general  rule,  where  one  is  sued  as 
executor  or  administrator,  no  personal  judgment 
may  be  rendered  against  him,6  although  there  are 
cases  in  which  it  has  been  regarded  as  permissible 
to  render  a  personal  judgment  against  one  so  sued.7 

A  plaintiff  cannot  object  to  a  decree  because  it 
was  rendered  against  him  in  the  name  and  capacity 
in  which  he  sued.8  Where  a  party  is  sued  as  per- 
sonal representative,  any  judgment  in  his  favor 
should  be  in  his  representative,  rather  than  in  his 
individual,  capacity.9 

b.  Property  Affected 

A  Judgment  affecting  property  should  be  limited  to 
that  described  In  the  pleadings  and  proof,  and,  accord- 
ing to  some  authorities,  a  Judgment  affecting  other 
property  is  void. 

A  judgment  affecting  property  should  be  limited 
to  the  property  described  in  the  pleadings,10  and 
judgments  affecting  other  property  have  been  held 


96.    111.— Stokes    v.    Riley,    11    N.E. 

877,  121  111.  166. 
33  CJ.  p  1153  note  41. 

96.  Mo.-— Vaughan  v.  St  Louis  &  S. 
F.   R.  -Co.,    164   S.W.    144,   177   Mo. 
App.  155. 

33  C.J.  p  1155  note  42. 

97.  N.Y.— Scranton    v.    Farmers'    & 
Mechanics'  Bank,  33  Barb.  527,  af- 
firmed 24  N.T.  424. 

98.  Cal.— Reed  v.   Molony,   101  P.2d 
175,  38  Cal.App,2d  405. 

Mo.— Baird  v.  National  Health  Foun- 
dation, 144  -S.W.2d  «50,  235  Mo. 
App.  694. 

33  CJ.  p  1155  note  44. 

99.  Conn.— Joseph   v.    Donovan,    164 
A.  498,  116  Conn.  160. 

33  C.J.  p  1155  note  45. 

3^  U.S. — Fortier  v.  New  Orleans 

Nat  Bank,  La.,  5  S.Ct.  234,  112  U. 

S.  439,  28  L.Ed.  764. 
33  C.J.  P  1155  note  46. 

2.  Cal.— Rogers     v.     Schlotterback, 
138  P.  728,  167  Cal.  35. 

24  C.J.  p  885  note  49. 

3.  La.-JChildress   v.    Davis,    15  iLa. 
49*2. 

24  C.J.  P  885  note  50,  33  C.J.  P  H'55 
note  40. 

4.  Me. — Hayes   v.    Rich,   64  A.   659, 
101  Me.   314,   11'5  Am.S.R.  314. 

24  C.J.  P  #85  note  51. 

&    Ala.— Singleton  v,  Gayle,  *  Port. 

270. 
24  C.J.  p  885  note  52. 

€.    Neb.— Burton  v.  Williams,  88  N. 

W.  765,  63  Neb.  431. 
24  C.J.  p  885  note  53. 


7.     Tenn. — Braden  v.  Hollingsworth, 

$  Humphr.  19. 
24  C.J.  p  88-6  notes  64,  55. 

a    Vt.— Sowles    v.    Sartwell,    56    A. 
282,  76  Vt.  70. 

9.  La. — Succession  of  Moore,   App., 
193  So.  222. 

10.  U.S.— Baten    v.    Kirby    Lumber 
Corporation,    C.C.A.Tex.,    103    F.2d 
272. 

Ala.— Alford  v.  Rodgers,  6  So.2d  409, 

242  Ala.  370 — Parker  v.  Duke,  157 

So.  43-6,  229  Ala.  361. 
Ariz.- Williams    v.    Earhart,    278    P. 

728,  34  Ariz.  -565. 
Cal.— Alpha  Stores  v.  Croft,   140   P. 

2d  688,   60  Cal.App.2d  349— Judson 

v.  Herrington,  150  P.2d  802,  55  Cal. 

App.2d  476. 
Ga.— Tinsley    v.    Commercial    Credit 

Co.,  164  S.E.  454,  45  Ga.App.  297. 
Idaho.— Nielson   v.    Garrett,   43    P.2d 

380,  55  Idaho  240. 
Mo.— Pioneer  Cooperage  Co.   v.  Dil- 

lard,  '59  S.W.2d  642,  332  Mo.  798— 

Wilkinson  v.   Lieberman,    37   S.W. 

3d   6(33,    327   Mo.  420— Garrison  v. 

City  of  Ozark,  App.,  248  S.W.  975. 
Tex.— Martin  v.  Abbott,  Civ.App.,  24 

S.W.2d  488 — Stevenson  v.   Barrow, 

Civ.App.,  285  S.W.  840,  reversed  on 

other  grounds,  Com. App.,  291  S.W. 

1101— Holasek   v.   Jahek,   Civ.App, 

244    S.W.    285. 
W.Va.— George  v.  Male,  153  S.E.  507, 

109  W.Va,   222. 
19  C.J.  p  1209  note  20  [a],  [b]— 33  C. 

J.   p   1168   note  32 — 47  C.J.   p   430 

note  65—51  C.J.  p  269  note  25  [c], 
[d]. 

122 


Judgments  held  proper 

(1)  Where  there  was  no  question 
as  to  what  land  was  in  dispute  and 
land  was  fully  described  in  the  de- 
cree   covering   land    in    controversy, 
decree    was    not    erroneous    because 
not  in  conformity  with  pleadings. — 
Arnd  v.   Harrington,    2*87    N.W.    292, 
227  Iowa  43. 

(2)  In  action  to  establish  title  to 
strip  of  land  between  fence  and  al- 
leged true  boundary  line  inside  fence, 
a  judgment  embracing  less  land  than 
that  claimed  in  pleadings  was  prop- 
er, where  land  recovered  was  locat- 
ed   precisely    as    contended    for   by 
plaintiffs'  petition,  except  as  respects 
width  of  strip.— Humble  Oil  &  Re- 
fining Co.   v.    Owings,    Tex.Civ.App., 
128  S.W.2d  6-7. 

(3)  A  judgment  providing  for  the 
return  of  certain  tires  was  held  prop- 
er under  pleadings  dealing  with  the 
"equipment"    of    a    certain    gasoline 
station. — Haley    v.    Traeger,    268    P. 
459,  92  Cal. App.  360. 

(4)  Where  description  of  land  in 
decree  vesting  title   did  not   follow 
that    in    the   bill,   but   included    the 
tract  in  question  and  land  could  be 
ascertained,  there  was  held  to  be  a 
sufficient      description. — Gaylor       v. 
Gaylor,  1  Tenn. App.  645. 

(5)  Other  cases. 

Ga.—Cason  v.  United  Realty  &  Auc- 
tion Co.,  in  S.B.  161,  161  Ga,  374. 

Tex.— Wells  v.  Laird,  Civ.App.,  57 
S.W.*2d  3*95,  error  refused — Steven- 
son v.  Barrow,  Civ. App.,  285  S.W. 
840,  reversed  on  other  grounds, 
Com.App.,  291  S.W.  1101. 


49.   C..J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§'51 


to  be  void11  although  as  to  this  there  is  ajso  author-  ! 
ity  to  the  contrary.12  It  has  been  held  that 'the  fact 
that  a  description  in  a  judgment  fixing  the  bounda- 
ries of  land  involved  in  a  litigation  differed  from 
the  description  in  the  pleadings  was  immaterial 
where  there  was  evidence  to  support  the  descrip- 
tion in  the  judgment.13 

A  judgment  should  also  be  supported  by  the  proof 
as  to  the  property  involved,14  and  hence  a  judg- 
ment following  a  description  in  the  complaint  which 
is  not  supported  by  the  evidence  cannot  stand.16 

c.  Quieting  Title 

Actions  to  quiet  title  are  governed  by  the  general 
rules  with  respect  to  conformity  of  the  judgment  with 
the  pleadings  and  proofs,  including  the  rules  as  to  the 
granting  of  affirmative  relief  to  a  defendant. 

The  rule  requiring  the  relief  afforded  by  the  judg- 
ment to  conform  to  the  case  made  out  by  the  plead- 
ings and  proofs  has  been  applied  in  actions  to  quiet 


title.16  It  is  error  to  grant  a  decree  quieting  plain- 
tiffs title  on  proof  of  facts  showing  merely  a  right 
to  specific  performance,17  and,  where  the  bill  con- 
tains only  statutory  averments,  relief  cannot  be 
granted  on  general  principles  of  equity.18  Under 
the  broad  provisions  of  some  statutes,  plaintiff  may 
so  frame  his  petition  as  to  authorize  either  legal 
or  equitable  relief.1^ 

Affirmative  relief  not  authorized  by  the  pleadings 
and  proof  cannot  be  granted  to  defendant,20  and 
in  some  jurisdictions  it  has  been  held  that  the 
court  cannot  decree  that  defendant  has  the  su- 
perior title  where  he  files  no  cross  complaint21 
and  does  not  pray  for  such  relief;22  but  in  others  it 
has  been  held  that  defendant's  title  may  be  declared 
superior  if  the  facts  justify  it,  although  he  files  no 
cross  complaint  or  otherwise  asks  for  such  relief.23 
If  defendants  set  up  equities  and  pray  for  judg- 
ment and  for  general  relief,  an  award  of  affirmative 


11.  Tenn.— Central     Sav.     Bank    v. 
Carpenter.    37   S.W.   278,   97   Tenn. 
4'37. 

33  C.J.  p  1168  note  S3. 

12.  Tex.— Williamson   V.   Wright,    1 
Tex.Unrep.Cas.  711. 

33  C.J.  P  1169  note  34. 

13.  Cal. — Dreyer  v.  Cole,  292  P.  123, 
210  Cal.  3:39. 

14.  111. — Osmonson  v.  Buck,   162  N. 
E.  142,  331  111.  25. 

Concession  by  party 

A  judgment  awarding  plaintiff 
land  to  which  he  concedes  he  is  mak- 
ing no  claim,  and  to  which  defend- 
ant appears  to  have  a  better  title,  is 
erroneous. — Hecker  v.  Bleish,  8  S. 
W.2d  1008,  319  Mo.  149. 

15.  Neb.— Cashing  v.  Conness,  95  N. 
W.  855,  4  Neb.   (Unoff.)  66-8. 

ia  Cal.— Baar  v.  Smith,  255  P.  827, 
201  Cal.  87— Bartholomae  Oil  Cor- 
poration v.  Delaney,  296  P.  690, 
112  CaLAfcp.  314. 

Mo. — Congregation  B'Nai  Abraham  v. 

Arky,   20  S.W.2d  899,  323  Mo.  776. 

N.M. — Otero   v.  Totl,   273  P.   917,   33 

N.M.  613. 
N.C. — Johnston    v,    Johnston,    12    S. 

B.2d  248,  218  N.C.  706. 
Utah. — Bolognese  v.  Anderson,  90  P. 
2d  275,   97  Utah  136 — Bertolina  v. 
Frates,  57  P.2d  346,  89  Utah  238. 
51  C.J.  p  2*9  note  25  [a]-[g]. 
Jurisdiction*!  facts 

Although  defendant's  occupancy  of 
the  land  was  not  alleged  in  the 
pleadings,  it  was  nevertheless  juris- 
dictional,  and  the  court  having  found 
as  a  fact  that  defendant  was  in  acitu- 
al  possession  when  the  suit  was 
commenced,  the  bill  was  properly 
dismissed.— Dolph  v.  Norton,  123  N. 
W.  13,  158  Mich.  417. 


Taxes,  penalties,  and  costs 

In  action  for  possession  of,  and  to 
Quiet  title  to,  realty,  portion  of  Judg- 
ment allowing  personal  recovery 
against  defendant  for  accumulated 
taxes,  penalties,  and  costs,  an£  de- 
creeing lien  against  property,  was 
held  void  where  Issue  as  to  such 
part  of  judgment  was  not  raised  by 
pleadings  or  evidence.  —  Fuqua  v. 
Watson,  46  P.2d  486.  172  Okl.  624. 

Cancellation  of  deed  as  cloud  on  ti- 
tle 

Where  the  clear  purpose  of  a  bill 
is  to  relieve  plaintiff's  land  from  the 
incubus  of  a  mortgage  foreclosure 
sale,  allegations  which  show  the  in- 
validity of  the  sale  as  against  plain- 
tiff, coupled  with  a  prayer  for  gen- 
eral relief,  are  sufficient  to  war- 
rant cancellation  of  the  deed  as  a 
cloud  on  title,  although  the  special 
prayer  was  for  redemption  and  re- 
conveyance to  the  mortgagor.  —  Dixie 
Grain  Co.  v.  Quinn,  61  So.  886,  181 
Ala.  208. 

TTnder  statute  authorizing-  determin- 
ation. of  adverse  claims 

Where  the  complaint  embraces  ev- 
ery averment  necessary  to  sustain 
an  action  to  Quiet  title  under  the 
general  provisions  of  the  -statute  re- 
lating to  such  actions,  a  judgment 
quieting  title  is  proper,  although  the 
action  was  brought  under  another 
statute  authorizing  an  action  to  de- 
termine adverse  claims  by  one  in  ad- 
verse possession  of  the  property  who 
has  paid  taxes  thereon  during  a  des- 
J4ro*±*d  period^—Bmst  v.  Tiel,  197 
P.  «U9,  «1  CaLApp,  747. 


Judgments  Held 
issues 

Cal.  —  District   Bond   Co.   v.   Pollack, 
121  P.2d  7,  19  CaL2d  304* 

123 


o.— Ebbs    v.    Neff,    30    S.W.2d    616, 

325  Mo.  1182. 
Mont — Thomson  v.  Nygaard,  41  P.2d 

1,  98  Mont  529. 
Okl. — -'Simmons    v.    Howard,    27-6    P. 

71*8,  136  OkL  118, 

17.  Mo. — Congregation    B'Nai    Abra- 
ham  v.   Arky,   20   S.W.2d   899,   823 
Mo.  776. 

Utah. — Hennefer  v.  Hays,   47  P.  90, 
14  Utah  324. 

18.  Ala. — First   Ave.   Coal   &  -Lum- 
ber Co.    v.   King,    69    So.    549,    193 
'Ala.  438 — Fowler  v.  Alabama  Iron 
&  Steel  Co.,   45   So.    635,  154  Ala. 
497. 

19.  Mo. — Murphy  v.  Barren,   205  & 
W.  49,  275  Mo.  282. 

51  C.J.  p  270  note  29. 

20.  N.D. — Brown    v.    "Comonow,    114 
N.W.  728,  17  N.D.  84. 

51  C.J.  p  276  note  30. 

21.  CaL — Hungarian      Hill      Gravel 
Min.   Co.   v.   Moses,   58   Cal.   168. 

Ky.— Spradlin    v.    Patrick,    64    S.W. 
•840,    23   Ky,L.    1156. 

22.  Tex.— State   v.    Black,    297    S.W. 
213,  118  Tex.  615,  53  A.L.R.  1181. 

51  C.J.  P  276  note  32. 

23.  Mich.— Miller  v.    Steele,   109  N. 
W.  37,  14*  Mich.  123. 

51  C.J.  p  276  note  33. 
Belief  "based  on  plaintiff's  pleading 
Where  the  statute  authorizes  the 
court  to  determine  the  title  and  in- 
terests of  all  the  parties,  and  plain- 
tiff's prayer  asks  that  this  be  done, 
it  is  proper  for  the  court,  if  title  is 
found  to  be  in  defendant,  so  to  de- 
tervtine,  without  any  prayer  on  the 
tetter's  part. — Himmelberger-Harri- 
son  Lumber  Co.  v.  Jones,  119  S.W. 
366,  220  Mo.  190—51  C.J.  p  276  not* 
34. 


51 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


relief  is  proper,  without  a  prayer  for  "affirmative 
relief  in  those  terms.24 

d.  Other  Applications 

The  rules  governing  conformity  of  Judgments  with 
the  pleadings,  Issues,  and  proofs  have  been  applied  In  a 
great  variety  of  cases,  the  propriety  of  the  particular 
relief  granted  depending  on  all  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances. 

The  rules  with  respect  to  the  necessity  that  judg- 
ments conform  to,  and  be  sustained  by,  the  plead- 
ings and  proofs,  the  relief  sought,  and  the  issues, 
have  been  applied  in  numerous  cases  in  addition  to 


those  already  considered;  and,  following  such  rules, 
the  relief  granted  under  the  circumstances  has  been 
held  proper  in  actions  or  judgments  for  or  relating 
to  accounts  or  accounting,26  annulment  of  mar- 
riage,26 antenuptial  agreements,27  attorney's  fees,23 
bonds,29  breach  of  marriage  promise,30  building 
contracts,31  cancellation  of  instruments,32  commis- 
sions,33 deeds,34  dower,35  easements,3*  ejectment,3* 
establishment  or  priority  of  liens,38  executors  and 
administrators,39  foreclosure,^  improvements,41  in- 


24.  Tex.— McCullough     v.      Rucker, 
115   S.W.    323,  53   Tex.Civ.A-pp.    89. 

25.  Cal. — Nelson  v.  Abraham,  App., 
162    P.2d   333— Sly'  v.   Abbott,   264 
P.   507,   89  CaLApp.   209— Miller  v. 
Superior  Court  of  California  in  and 
for   ILos    Angeles   County,    210   P. 
832,  :59  CaLApp.  340. 

Ga.— Grant   v.   Hart,    80    S.E.2d    271, 

197  Ga.  6-62. 
Mo.— Welch-Sandier    Cement    Co.    v. 

Mullins,  App.,  31  S.W.2d  86— Loge- 

man  Mfg.   Co.   y.   Logernan,  App., 

298  S.W.  1040. 
Xex. — Zimmerman     v.     Millan,     Civ. 

App.,   141  'S.W.2d  3-94— Samuels  v. 

Finkelstein,    Qiv.App.,     25     S.W.2d 

•923,  error  dismissed. 

26.  CaL-JFigoni    v.    Figoni,    295    P. 
•339,  211  Cal.  354. 

27.  111.— Parker   v.   Gray,   148   N.B. 
323,  317  111.  468. 

Kan.— Baldwin   v.   Baldwin,    98   P.2d 
614,  150  Kan.  507. 

28.  Cal. — Martin    v.    Pacific    South 
west   Royalties,    106    P.2d  443,    41 
Cal.App.2d  161. 

La, — -Wild  v.  Standard  General  Real 
ty  Co.,   App.,   145    So.   58,  affirmed 
149  'So.  114,  177  La.  664. 

Tex.— Rychener     v.     McGuire,     Civ 
App.,  66  'S.W.'2d  418. 

29.  Tex. — I>e     Zavala     r.     Scanlan 
Com.App.,  65  S.W.2d  489. 

30.  Tenn. — Poster  v.   Andrews,    18 
S.W;2d  580. 

31.  Cal.— Karlik   v.    Peters,    288   P 
•»63,  106  CaLApp.  126. 

9  C.J.  p  892  note  51. 

32.  Cal. — Empire   Lease   &   Royalt 
Co.  v.  Jones,  8  P.2d  512,  121  Cal 
APp.  23. 

Ga.— Cason  v.  United  Realty  &  Auc 

tton  Co.,  131  S.B.  161,  161  Ga.  374 
Mich.— Drinski   v.    Drinski,    15   N.W 

•2d  714,  309  Mich.  479. 
Okl.— Exchange    Bank    of   Perry   v 

Nichols,  164  P.2d  867. 
Tex.— Sabens   v.    fiochruxn,   dv.App 

292  S.^.  281.  -    ' 


Fraud  as  "actual"  or  "constructive" 
Where  petition  for  cancellation  of 
ease  recited  facts  and  prayed  for  a 
ecree  declaring  the  lease  to  be  il- 
egal  and  void  because  of  fraud,  and 
rdering     cancellation    thereof    and 
or  such  other,  further,  and  differ- 
nt    relief    as    equity    and    justice 
might   require,   a  holding  that  con- 
tructive   fraud   existed  was  within 
petition,    although    neither    "actual" 
ior  "constructive"  was  used  in  con- 
aection  with  charge  of  fraud. — John- 
son v.  Radio  Station  W  O  W,  14  N. 
W.2d  '$66,  144  Neb.  406,  reversed  on 
other  grounds  65  <S.Ct.  147-5,   32*  IT. 
S.  120,  8'9  L.B?d.  2092,  motion  denied 
66  S.Ct  11. 
Inability  to  surrender  stock 

Where  a  petition  for  the  cancella- 
tion of  stock  contained  a  prayer  for 
general  relief,  it  authorized  a  judg- 
ment for  the  value  of  the  stock 
which  a  stockholder  was  ordered  to 
surrender  for  cancellation,  but  which 
le  was  unable  to  surrender  because 
tie  had  transferred  it  to  a  brokerage 
. — McCombs  Producing  &  Refin- 
ing Co.  V.  Ogle,  254  S.W.  4'25,  200  Ky. 
208. 

33,  Ark.— Core  v.  Henley,  16  S.W.2d 
579,  179  Ark.  488. 

Conn. — Nocera  v.  La  Mattina,  145  A. 
271,  109  Conn.  5*89. 

Tex.— Murchison  v.  Ballard,  Civ. 
App.,  17*  S.W.2d  554,  error  re- 
fused— Jones  v.  Bledsoe,  Civ.App., 
293  S.W.  204. 


.    Adams,    117    S.B. 

335,  30  Ga.App.  197. 
HI. — Burroughs  v.   Mefforfl,   5-6   N.B. 

2d  845,  387  111.  461— Hayes  v.  Min- 

iter,  139  N.m  74,  308  111.  22. 
Mo.— Presbyterian      Orphanage      of 

Missouri  v.  Fitterling,  114  S.W.2d 

1004,    342    Mo.    299— Mayberry    v. 

Clark,   297   S.W.   39,  317  Mo.  442. 
rpex. — Green  v.  Duncan,  CivJV.pp.,  134 

S.W.2d  744. 

35(i    Ark.— Less    v.    Less,    249    S.W. 

583,  158  Ark.  25-5. 
36.    111. — Stowell  v.  Prentiss,  154  N. 

El  120,  323  111.  309,  50  A.L.R.  584. 
Ky.— Wilson  v.  Trent,  38  S.W.2d  429, 

23*  Ky.  551. 

124 


37.    Ariz.— Keystone  Copper  Min.  Co. 

v.  Miller,  164  P.2d  603. 
Ky.— Parkey    v.    Arthur,    $3    S.W.2d 

921,  245  Ky.  525. 
j£0. — Marsden  v.  Nipp,  30  S.W.23  77, 

525  Mo.  822. 
Application  of  rules  with  respect  to 

parties  in  action  of  ejectment  see 

supra    subdivision   a    (1)    of    this 

section. 

5.    Idaho.— Gillette   v.    Oberholtzer, 

264  P.  229,  45  Idaho  571. 
Iowa.— Holden  v.  VoeHcer,   293  N.W. 

32,  228  Iowa  589. 
Ky.— Smith  v.  Sellers,  284  S.W.  1*34, 

215  Ky.  181. 

39.  Cal.— Tarien    v.    Katz,    1*5    P.2d 
493,  216  Cal.  5-54,  85  AL.R.  334. 

Ga. — Sangster  v.  Toledo  Mfg.  Co.,  1> 

S.B.2d  723,  193  Ga.  685. 
Mo.'— Reed   v.    Tedford,    App.,    72    S. 

W.2d  207. 

2-4  C.J.  p   884  notes  44    [a]-[e3. 
Personal  or  representative  capacity 

see    supra    subdivision    a    (2)    of 

this  section. 

40.  Ga.— Ten-Fifty   Ponce   de   Leon 
Co.   v.   Citizens'   &  Southern  Nat. 
Bank,   153    S.B.   751,    170   Ga.    642. 

Tex — Stoutz    v.    Amarillo    Bank    & 

Trust  Co.,  Civ.App.,  81  S.W.2d  778, 

error  dismissed 
Utah. — Meissner  v.  Ogden,   L.   &  1. 

Ry.  Co.,  233  IP.  569,  65  Utah  1. 
Wash.— Beadle    v.    Barta,    123    P.2d 

761,  13  Wash.2d  67. 
42  C.J.  p  142  note  53  [fj»  P  143  note 

57  [a],  [b]. 
Bights  of  purchaser  at  foreclosure 

Where  there  was  an  actual  con- 
troversy before  the  court  as  to  the 
rights  of  purchaser  in  property  pur- 
chased at  foreclosure  sale,  judgment 
declaring  purchaser  at  foreclosure 
sale  to  be  the  owner  of  the  property 
subject  only  to  right  of  redemption, 
and  that  his  title  thereto  subject 
to  such  right  be  Quieted  against  any 
and  all  claims  of  perseas  claiming 
property  by  adverse  possession,  was 
proper.-HSnyder  v.  Pine  Grove  Lum- 
ber Co.,  105  P.2d  369,  40  Cal.App.2d 
660. 


1.    Mo. — Sutton  v.  Anderson,  31  S. 
W.2d  10*26,  (326  Mo.  804. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  51 


junctive  relief,42  insurance,4^  leases  or  rents,44 
notes,4*  oil  or  gas  leases  or  royalties,46  partner- 
ships,47 partition,4*  patents,49  personal  injuries,50 


quo  warranto,51  rescission,5^  services  rendered,53 
specific  performance,54  trespass,55  trusts,56  and  oth- 
er matters.57 


42.  Cal.— Knox  v.  Wolfe,  App.,  167 
P.2d  3— Sharp  v.  Big  Jim  Mines, 
103  P.2d  430,  39  Cal.App.2d  435. 

Mo. — Meder  v.  Wilson,  App.,  192  S. 

W.2d  606. 
TTse  of  private  way 

Decree  enjoining  use  of  a  private 
way  over  defendants'  land  connect- 
ing plaintiffs'  tracts  was  not  beyond 
pleading  of  injunction  suit  where 
decree  only  determined  plaintiffs'  ti- 
tle to  an  easement  and  not  title  to 
a  fee.— Fassold  v.  Schamfcurg.  166 
S.W.2d  571,  i350  Mo.  464. 

43.  Kan. — Dobrauc      v.      Concordia 
Fire    Ins.    Co.,    10    P.2d    875,    135 
Kan.  297. 

La. — Richmond    v.    New   York   Life 

Ins.  Co.,  App.,  25  So.2d  94. 
Mo. — Homan  v.  Employers  Reinsur- 
ance  Corporation,   136  S.W.Sd  289, 
845  Mo.  650,  127  A.L.R.  163— Nick 
v.    Travelers    Ins.   Co.,    App.,    185 
•     S.W.2d     326— De    Mott    v.     Great 
American   Ins.   Co.   of  New  York, 
181    S.W.2d   64,   234   Mo.App.  31. 
N.Y. — Borszewski   v.   Bukowski,    260 

N.Y.S.  643,  145  Misc.  680. 
Tex. — Georgia    Home     Ins.     Co.     v. 
Trice,  Civ.App.,  70  «S.W.2d  356,  er- 
ror     dismissed — Northern     Assur. 
Co.  v.  Herd,  Civ.App..  27*  S.W.  884. 
33  C.J.  p  144  note  83  [a]. 
Change  of  beneficiary 

Allegation  that  change  of  benefi- 
ciary of  life  policy  was  inequitable, 
unjust,  voidable,  and  ought  to  be  set 
aside  was  held  sufficient  to  support 
decree  for  first  beneficiary  as  against 
contention  that  decree  did  not  con- 
form to  pleadings  because  no  fraud 
was  found. — Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Gebo,  170  A.  917,  106  Vt  155. 

44.  La. — Chambers  v.  Vega,  137  So. 
879,  18  La.App.  756. 

N.Y. — Longo  v.  Sparano,  196  N.Y.&. 

344,  119  Misc.  402. 
S.C. — Stackhouse  v.  (Pure  Oil  Co.,  180 

S.E.  188,  176  6.C.  318. 

45.  Iowa. — Iowa  State  Sav.  Bank  of 
Malvern  v.  Young,   244   N.W.   271, 
214     Iowa    1287,    84    A.L.R.    1400, 
rehearing  denied  245  N.W.  864,  84 
A.L.R.  1400. 

Kan. — Illinois  Life  Ins.  Co.  v* 
Young,  235  P.  104,  118  Kan.  308, 
certiorari  denied  Young  v.  Still- 
well,  46  «S.Ct  21,  269  U.S.  560,  70 
L.Ed.  412. 

Ky. — Board  of  Education  of  Pulaski 
County  v.  Nelson,  88  S.W.ifd  17, 
261  Ky.  466. 

Or. — Boyce  v.  Toke  Point  Oyster  Co., 
Consol.,  25  P.2d  930,  145  Or.  114. 

Tex. — Dashiel  v.  LOtt,  Com.App.,  243 
S.W.  1072. 

Alternative    prayer   for   balance   on 

open  account 
In  action  on  notes,  where  evidence 


showed  payment  of  notes  but  exist- 
ence of  undisputed  balance  due 
payee  on  open  account,  payee  was 
entitled  to  judgment  for  balance  on 
open  account  under  amended  com- 
plaint praying  for  such  relief  in  al- 
ternative.— Federal  Rubber  Co.  v.  M. 
M.  5Stewart  Co.,  41  P.2d  158,  180 
Wash.  625. 

mdividtifll  obligation  of  codef  endant 
Where  petition  in  action  against 
defendants,  as  partners,  on  a  note 
executed  by  codef  endant  and  payable 
to  plaintiff,  copied  the  note  in  hsec 
verba  and  contained  prayer  for  gen- 
eral relief,  and  petition  showed  on 
its  face  that  note  as  drawn  was  an 
individual  obligation  of  codefendant, 
petition  was  sufficient  to  support  a 
judgment  against  codefendant. — 
Poynor  v.  Adams,  Tex.Civ.App.,  135 
S.W.2d  722. 

46.  Kan.— Flitch  v.   Boyle,    89   (P.2d 
909,   0.49   Kan.    884— McDermed   v. 
Ackley,  44  P.2d  27-4,  141  Kan.  818. 

Tex.— Caldwell-Guadalupe.  Pick-Up 
Stations  v.  Gregg,  Civ.App.,  276  <3, 
W.  3-42,  modified  on  other  grounds 
Gregg  v.  Caldwell-Guadalupe  Pick- 
Up  Stations,  Com. App.,  286  S.W. 
1083. 

47.  La. — Blanchard     v.      Patterson, 
119    So.   902,    9  La.App.    706. 

48.  Ky. — Howard  v.  Carmichael,  55 
S.W.2d  852,  237  Ky.  462. 

Mo.— Virgin   v.   Kennedy,   32   S.W.2d 

91,  326  Mo.  400. 
Tex. — Bowles  v.  Bryan,  Civ. App.,  277 

S.W.  760. 

49.  U.S. — General   Motors    Corpora- 
tion v.  Leer  Auto  Supply  Co.,  C. 
C.A.N.Y.,  60  F.2d  902. 

50.  Ala. — City    of    Birmingham    v. 
Smith,  163  So.  611,  231  Ala.  95. 

Ky. — Harmon  v.  Rose,  32  -S.W.2d  67, 

235  Ky.  701. 
Tex. — Caddo  Warehouse  &  Transfer 

Co.    v.   Riley,   Civ.App.,    7    S.W.2d 

137,  error  dismissed. 

51.  Fla.— City     of     Auburndale     v. 
State  ex  reL  Landls,  184  So.  787, 
135  Fla.  172. 

52.  La. — Houston-Long  Co.  v.  Fair- 
cloth,  137  So.  594,  18  La.App.  423, 
Judgment  fiadag  damages  to  ven- 
dor for  failure  of  consideration  may 
be  entered  under  complaint  for  re- 
scission and  evidence  showing  value 
of  property  and  consideration. — Mas- 
ero   v.    Bessolo,    262    P.    61,    87   Cal. 
App.  262. 

53.  Cal.— Maxwell  v.  Jimeno,  265  P. 
885,    89   CaLApp.    612 — Rosener   v. 
Hanlon  Dry  Bock  &  Shipbuilding 
Co.,  236  (P.  183,  71  CaLApp.  767. 

La. — McCook    v.    Comegys,    125    So. 

134,  169  La,  312. 
Tex. — Reymershotter    v.    Ray,    Civ. 

125 


App.,    85    S.W.2d    1102,    error   re- 
fused. 

54.  Cal. — Roark  v.   Southern   Trust 
&  Commerce  Bank,  288  (P.  110,  105 
CaLApp.  521. 

Wis.— In  re  Shinoe's  Estate.  250  N. 

W.  505,  212  Wis.  481. 
Option  to  purchase 

A  Judgment  decreeing  specific  per- 
formance of  tan  option  to  purchase 
contained  in  a  lease  was  not  void 
merely  because  complaint  failed  spe- 
cifically to  allege  that  option  speci- 
fied adequate  consideration  or  that 
the  contract  was  fair,  where  issue 
of  adequacy  was  conceded  by  the 
conduct  of  defendants  at  the  trial 
and  findings  of  adequacy  and  fair- 
ness were  supported  by  evidence. — 
Drullinger  v.  Erskine,  CaLApp.,  16& 
P.2d  48. 

55.  Ky.— Siler  v.  Cannon,   130   S.W. 
2d  742,   279  Ky.   328— Chapman  v. 
Majestic  Collieries    Co.,    288    S.W. 
299,  216  Ky.  652. 

56.  Cal.— Webb    v.    Vercoe,    258    P. 
1099,  201  Cal.  754,  54  A.L.R.  1200. 

57.  TLS. — Municipal    Excavator    Co. 
v.    Siedhoff,    C.OA.Kan.,    15    F.2d 
10. 

Ariz.— Betts  v.  Lightning  Delivery 
Co.,  22  P.2d  827,  42  Ariz.  105. 

Cal. — Estrin  v.  Superior  Court  in  and 
for  Sacramento  County,  96  F.2d 
340,  14  Cal.2d  670— (Peak  v.  Repub- 
lic Truck  Sales  Corporation,  230  P. 
948,  194  Cal.  -782— Wiley  v. 
Wright,  79  P.2d  196,  26  CaLApp* 
2d  305— Burd  v.  Downing,  213  P. 
287,  60  CaLApp.  493. 

Conn. — Heneault  v.  Papas,  121  A.  273, 
99  Conn.  164. 

Ga.— Phillips  v.  Whelchel,  170  S.E. 
480,  177  Ga.  489— Stover  v.  Atlan- 
tic Ice  &  Coal  Corporation,  125  S.E. 
837,  159  Gku  357— Powell  v.  Black- 
stock,  13  S.E.2d  503,  6'4  Ga.App. 
442. 

Idaho.^-Angel  v.  Mellen,  285  (P.  461, 
48  Idaho  750. 

HL — Johnson  v.  Watson,  33  N.E.2S 
130,  .309  IlLApp.  440— Martin  J. 
Hecht,  Inc.,  v.  Steigerwald,  24  N. 
E.2d  394,  302  IlLApp.  556. 

Ind. — Hosanna  v.  Odishoo,  193  NJ3L 
599,  208  Ind.  132,  rehearing  denied 
195  N.E.  72,  208  Ind.  132— Wag- 
goner v.  Honey,  169  N.BL  349,  91 
Ind.App.  $1. 

Ky. — Ben  Humplch  ISand  Co.  v» 
Moore,  69  S.W.2d  396,  253  Ky. 
667 — Consolidation  Coal  Co.  v. 
Riddle,  248  S.W.  530,  198  Ky.  256. 

La. — Sanders  De  Hart  v.  Continental 
Land  &  Pur  Co.,  17  So.2d  827,  205 
La.  569. 

Mass.— Gallup  v.  Barton,  47  N.E.2d 
921,  313  Mass.  -379. 

Mich. — Wesorick  v.  Winans,  269  N. 
W.  609,  277  Mich.  589— Hogan  v. 


I  51 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


On  the  other  hand,  following  the  rules  with  re- 
spect to  conformity  of  judgments  with  the  plead- 
ings, proofs,  and  issues,  particular  relief  has  been 
held  improper  in  actions  or  judgments  for  or  re- 


lating to  accounting,58  adverse  possession,59  attor- 
neys' fees,60  cancellation  of  instruments,61  checks,62 
commissions,6^  condemnation  of  property,6*  conver- 
sion,65 deeds  and  conveyances,66  ejectment,67  exec- 


Whltcomb,  206  N.W.  328,  233  Mich. 

403. 
Minn. — Child    v.    "Washed     Sand     & 

Gravel    Co.,     233     N.W.     586,    181 

Minn.  559. 
Mo. — Timmonds  v.  Wilbur,  260  S.W. 

1004— Fielder    v.    Fielder,    App.,    6 

S.W.2d     968 — Sanders     v.    "Sheets, 

App.,    287    S.W.    1069 — Menefee    v. 

Scally,    App.,   247    S.W.    259. 
•Okl.— Cusa'ck   v.    McMasters,    279   P. 

329,  tt<37  Okl.  278. 
S.C.— In   re   Sugg's   Estate.    51   S.B. 

263,  71  S.C.  439. 
Utah.— Jeffries     v.     Third     Judicial 

Dist.  Court  of  Salt  Lake  County, 

63  P.2d  242,  90  Utah  525. 
Wash.— Robinson   v.    Puget   Electric 

Welding  Co.,  299  P.  405,  162  Wash. 

626. 

33  C.J.  p  1168  note  28   [a]   (1),  [b]. 
•Reformation 

•It  has  been  held  that  reformation 
need  not  have  been  asked  for  spe- 
cifically in  the  pleading  to  permit 
the  court  to  enforce  a  contract  as 
.•actually  made,  although  not  in  a,c- 
•cordance  with  a  copy  attacked  as 
fraudulent. — Hornick  v.  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  118  P.  60,  85  Kan.  568,  38 
X,.R.A.,N.S.,  826,  Ann.Cas.l913A  208. 

S8.  Conn. — "Steinmetz  v.  Steinmetz, 
7  A.2d  915,  125  Conn.  663. 

«Fla.— Garden  'Suburbs  Golf  &  Coun- 
try Club  v.  iPruitt,  24  So.Sd  898, 

Mo.-^Palnier  v.  -Marshall,  App.,  24 
S.W.2d  229. 

N.Y.— Hauenstein  v.  Fisher,  34  N.Y. 
S.2d  902,  264  App.Div.  825— Clark- 
son  v.  Lusher,  5  N.Y.S.2d  631,  255 
App.Div.  705,  resettled  In  re  Lush- 
ex's  Will,  7  N.Y.S.2d  1012,  255 
App.Div.  860. 

Okl. — Bishop  v.  Franks,  107  P.2d  358, 

188  oki.  iae. 

Profit  from  resale 

Where,  at  the  time  a  suit  against 
.a  company  and  some  of  its  stock- 
holders for  accounting  was  Institut- 
ed, erne  defendant  had  not  yet  ac- 
quired a  deed  of  trust  to  the  cor- 
poration's property,  and  no  supple- 
mental bill  was  filed,  it  could  not 
Tiave  been  contemplated  by  the 
pleadings  that  the  holder  of  the 
trust  deed  should  be  reauired  to  ac- 
count for  any  profit  from  resale 
.after  foreclosure,  and  a  Judgmen^ 
requiring  him  to  so  account  was 
without  the  scope  of  the  pleadings 
and  void. — Lewis  v.  School,  Mo.App. 
244  .S.W.  90. 
[Personal  Judgment  against  corporate 
director 

Where  complaint  by  stockholders 
^alleged  that  director  flailed  to  ac 
•count  for  proceeds  of  stock  and  ap- 
propriated other  money  of  corpora- 


tion and  prayed  an  accounting,  per- 
sonal judgment  against  director  ex- 
ceeded  relief   prayed  for. — Angel   v. 
Mellen,  285  P.  461,  48  Idaho  750. 
Claim  not  referred  to  in  complaint 

In  action  for  accounting  by  land- 
owner on  contract  for  building  hous- 
es, judgment  in-eluding  amount  bas- 
ed on  claim  not  referred  to  in  com- 
plaint could  not  be  sustained. — Aus- 
tin v.  Harry  E.  Jones,  Inc.,  44  P. 
2d  667,  6  Cal.App.2d  493. 

59.  Tex. — Stevenson  v.  Barrow,  Civ. 
App.,  265  S.W.  602. 

60.  Cal.— Swanson     v.     Hempstead, 
149    P.2d   404,    64    Cal.App.2d    681. 

Tex. — Thompson  v.  Kleinman,  Civ. 
App.,  259  S.W.  593. 

61.  Ala.— «mith   v.    Smith,    114    So. 
192,  216  Ala.  570. 

Ga, — Land  Development  Corporation 
v  Union  Trust  Co.  of  Maryland, 
180  S.E.  836,  180  Ga.  785— De 
Loach  v.  (Purcell,  145  S.E.  424, 
166  Ga,  562. 

.— Denney   v.    Peters,    10    N.E.2d 
754,  104  Ind.App.  504. 
y. — In-ez   Deposit   Bank   v.    Pinson, 
122  S.W.2d  1031,  276  Ky.  84. 
La. — Switzer   v.    Driscoll,    App.,    183 

So.  57. 
Mo.— McKay   v.   «Snider,    190    S.W.2d 

886. 

Tex.— Dallas  Joint  Stock  Land  Bank 
v.  King,  Civ.App.,  167  S.W.2d  245, 
error  refused — Home  Ben.  Ass'n 
v.  Allee,  Civ.App.,  128  S.W.2d  417 
— -Armstrong  v.  Murray  Tool  & 
Supply  Co.,  Civ.App.,  31  S.W.2d 
1101. 
Bar  of  future  action 

A  recital  In  a  Judgment  denying 
plaintiff's  claim  for  forfeiture  and 
cancellation  of  lease  that  it  should 
not  be  a  bar  to  any  future  action 
for  damages  or  specific  performance, 
being  an  adjudication  of  a  matter 
not  presented  by  the  pleadings,  is 
erroneous. — Masterson  v.  Amarillo 
Oil  Co.,  Tex.Civ.App.,  253  S.W.  908 
Money  damages  held  improper 

Where  wife,  prior  to  divorce,  con- 
tracted with  husband  and  executed 
deed  of  community  property  to  him 
and  after  divorce  Instituted  action 
to  annul  contract  and  deed  for  fraud 
a  judgment  awarding  plaintiff  mon- 
ey damages  and  directing  defendan1 
to  pay  plaintiff  support  money  for 
child  was  void,  as  without  the  Is- 
sues.— Stanley  v.  McKenzie,  240  P 
103)3,  29  Ariz.  288. 
Cancellation  not  sought 

Where  both  parties  to  suit  sough 
construction    and    specific    perform- 
ance   of    contract,    and    neither    at 
tacked    its    validity   nor   sought   its 
cancellation,   court   erred  In  cancel 

126 


ng   It.— Kentucky   &.  West  Virginia 
>ower  Co.  v.  Gilllam,   276  S.W.  983, 

210  Ky.  820. 

Establishment     and    foreclosure    o* 


In  suit  to  cancel  purported  deed 
on  ground  it  was  In  fact  a  mort- 
gage, that  part  of  judgment  which 
fixed  a  tax  lien  and  foreclosed  it 
and  foreclosed  a  vendor's  Item,  was 
erroneous,  where  neither  party 
sought  the  fixing  of  tax  lien  or  fore- 
closure of  tax  lien  and  vendor's  lien. 
— Duncan  v.  Green,  Tex.Civ.App., 
113  S.Wj2d  656,  error  dismissed, 

62.  Mo. — Massey-Harris      Harvester 
Co.    v.    Federal    Reserve    Bank   of 
Kansas    City,    48    S.W.2d    158,    226 
Mo.App.  916. 

Tex. — Street    v.    Cunningham,     Civ. 

App.,  156  S.W.2d  541. 
notice  of  dishonor 

Judgment  based  on  holding  that 
failure  to  give  notice  of  dishonor  of 
checks  was  fatal  to  recovery  was 
properly  reversed,  where  no  plea 
raised  question  of  discharge  by  flail- 
ure  to  give  notice  of  dishonor. — 
Comer  v.  Brown,  Tex.Com.App.,  283 
S.W.  307. 

63.  Tex.— McClory      v.       Schneider, 
Civ.App.,  51  S.W.2d  738,  error  dis- 
missed— Smyth     v.     Conner,     Civ. 
App.,    280    S.W.    600— John  Christ- 
ensen  &  Co.  v.   McNeil,   Civ.App., 
251  S.W.  351. 

64.  Ky.— City  of  Owingsville  v.  TJ1- 
ery,  86  S.W.2d  706,  260  Ky.  792. 

65.  Tex. — Lewis     v.     Gamble,     Civ. 
App.,    113    S.W.2d    659— Meador   v. 
Wagner,  Civ.App.,    70   S.W.2d   794, 
error  dismissed. 

66.  R.L— Nelson  v.    Streeter,   13   A. 
2d  256,  65  R.'I.  1*3. 

Tex.— Long  v.  McCoy,  Civ.App.,   294 
S.W.  6-33,  affirmed  McCoy  v.  Long, 
Com.App.,   15   -S.W.2d   234,   rehear- 
ing denied  17  S.W.2d  783. 
Absence   of  interest  in  land 

Where  only  issues  before  court 
were  existence  of  alleged  indebted- 
ness and  whether  quitclaim  deed 
was  intended  as  mortgage,  portion 
of  judgment  adjudging  that  plaintiff 
had  no  Interest  whatever  in  land 
was  held  void.— State  ex  rel.  Shull 
v.  Moore,  27  P.2d  1048,  167  Okl.  28. 

67.  Mo. — Riley  v.  La 'Font,  174  S.W. 
2d  857 — Brown  v.  Wilson,  155  S.W. 
2d  176,  348  Mo.  658. 

19  C.J.  P  1209  note  20  Dc]-[e],  p  1240 

note  19  [a]. 
Improvements 

Adjudication  that,  defendant  to 
ejectment  is  entitled  to  nothing  for 
improvements  is  erroneous,  where 
no  such  issue  is  made  by  pleadings. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  51 


utors  and  administrators,68  fixtures,69  foreclosure,70 
foreign  judgments,71  forfeiture,™  gifts,™  guaran- 
ties,74 injunctive  relief,75  insurance,76  interplead- 


er,77 leases  or  rents,78  notes,™  partition,80  partner- 
ships,81 personal  injuries,82  quo  warrantors  receiv- 


— Lester   v.    Tyler,    Mo.,    69    S.W.2d 
633. 

68.  Ky. — Stlmson's   Ex'x  v.    Tharp, 
144  S.W.2d  1031,   284  Ky.  389. 

24  C.J.  p  884  note  44  [a]. 

Personal   or  representative   capacity 

see    supra    subdivision    a    (2)    of 

this  section. 

69.  Ky.— Tabor  v.   Tabor,   280   S.W. 
1S4,  213  Ky.  312. 

70.  N.Y.— Brockport    Nat.    Bank    v. 
Webaco    Oil   Co.,    12   N.T.S.2d   65-2, 
257    App.Div.    68,    reargument    de- 
nied 14  N.Y.S.2d  495,  257  App.Div. 
1043. 

N.C.-- Richardson  v.  Satterwhite,  150 

$.E.  116,  197  N.C.  609. 
Ohio.— Lebanon     Production     Credit 

Ass'n  v.  Feldhaus,  App.,  34  N.E.2d 

463. 
Tex. — Smith  v.  Jaggers,  Civ.App..  16 

S.W.2d   9ff9,    error  dismissed. 
Vt — Freedley  v.  Edwin  Shuttleworth 

Co.,  130  A.  691,  99  Vt.  25. 
33  C.J.  p  1139  note  52   [b]    (1),   [e] 

— 42   C.J.   p   142   notes  48,   53    [c], 

[e]. 
Extent  of  interest  foreclosed 

In  action  to  foreclose  vendor's 
lien  where  only  evidence  of  defend- 
ant's interest  was  in  deed  from 
plaintiff  to  defendant,  Judgment 
foreclosing  an  interest  less  than  de- 
scribed in  deed  was  error. — Smith  v. 
Totton,  Civ.App.,  98  S.W.2d  1019.  af- 
firmed Totton  v.  -Smith,  113  S.W.2d 
517,  131  Tex.  219.  • 
TL  Oal.— Morrow  v.  Morrow,  105  P. 

2d    129,    40   Cal.App.2d   474. 
7S.    111.— Penkala    v.    Tomczyk,    148 

N.E.  64,  317  111.  356. 
7a    Mo.— Riney  v.  Riney,  App.,   117 
S.W.2d  698. . 


74.  La.— Exchange    Nat    Bank    of 
Shreveport  v.  Holomon  Bros.,   123 
So.  603,  168  La.  870. 

75.  Cal.— Sharp  v.  Big  Jim  Mines, 
103    P.2d    430,    39    Cal.App.2d    435. 

Idaho.— Boise  Street  Car  Co.  v.  Van 

Avery,  103  P.2d  1107,  61  Idaho  502. 
Mich.— Ottney  v.   Taylor,   13  N.W.2d 

280,  308  Mich.  252. 
Mo— Finley    v.    -Smith,    178    S.W.2d 

326,  552  Mo.  465— Fugel  v.  Becker, 

2  S.W.2d  743. 
Neb.— Hallgren   v.   Williams,    20   N. 

W.2d  499. 
Pa.— Ebur  v.  Alloy  Metal  Wire  Co., 

155  A.  280,  304  Pa.  177. 
Vacation  of  Judgment 

In  suit,  to  enjoin  enforcement  of 
Judgment,  court's  attempt  to  vacate 
Judgment  was  held  nugatory,  since 
it  was  unauthorized  by  pleadings.— 
Baria  v.  Taylor,  57  IS.W.2d  858. 
Personal  Judgment;  order  of  »ale 

In  suit  to  restrain  sale  under  trust 
deed,    judgment    against    mortgagor 


personally    and    ordering    sale    was 
held  not  warranted  under  pleadings. 
— Farm  *&   Home    Savings    &    Loan 
Ass'n  of  Missouri  v.  Muhl,  Tex.Civ. 
App.,  37  S.W.2d  516,  error  refused. 
76.    Ky. — London  &  Provincial  Ma- 
rine  &   Fire   Ins.   Co.   of  London, 
England,  v.  Mullins.  95  «S.W.2d  588, 
264    Ky.    780— Fidelity    Mut.    Life 
Ins.  Co.  v.  Hembree,  41  S.W.2d  649, 
240  Ky.  97. 

Mo.— Smith  v.  Smith,  App.,  192  S. 
W.2d  691,  followed  in  192  S.W.2d 
700. 

N.J.~^Magliano  v.  Metropolitan  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  34  A.2d  296,  21  N.J.Misc. 
394. 

Tex. — Drane  v.  Jefferson  Standard 
Life  Ins.  Co.,  161  S.W.2d  1057, 
139  Tex  101— Home  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Scott,  Civ-App.,  152  S.W.2d  413, 
error  dismissed — Snyder  N  Local 
Mut  Life  Ass'n,  Group  One,  v.  Le- 
mond,  Civ.App.,  116  S.W.2d  829, 
error  refused— National  Aid  Life 
Ass'n  v.  Bailey,  Civ.App.,  54  S.W. 
2d  206— Fidelity  Union  Fire  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Barnes,  Civ.App.,  293  S.W. 
279. 

Wis.— Schmidt  v.  La  Salle  Fire  Ins. 
Co.  of  New  Orleans,  245  N.W.  702, 
209  Wis.  576. 

33    C.J.   P  1139   note  52    [b]    (3),   P 
1168    note   28    [c]— 57    C.J.    P    656 
note  13. 
Disability 

Where  an  accident  policy  provides 
indemnity  for  partial  and  total  dis- 
ability, if  insured  sues  for  the  in- 
demnity payable  for  a  total  disabil- 
ity he  cannot,  in  the  same  action, 
recover  indemnity  for  a  partial  disa- 
bility which  succeeded  his  total  dis- 
ability.— Rayburn  v.  Pennsylvania 
Casualty  Co.,  54  S.E.  283,  1-41  N.C. 
425. 


Pa.— Normile  v.  Martell,  96  Pa.Super. 

139. 
Tex. — Wafford  v.   Branch,   Com.App.» 

267  S.W.  260 — Gulf  Refining  Co.  T. 

Smith,  Civ.App.,  81  S.W.2d  155. 


Fraud 

Where  issue  of  fraud  was  irrele- 
vant because  not  pleaded,  finding 
thereon  for  insurer  sued  for  pre- 
miums would  not  support  Judgment 
for  insurer.  —  American  Nat  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Villegas,  Tex.Civ.App.,  32  S.W.2d 
1109. 


77,  Cal.—  Van  Orden  v.  Golden  West 
Credit  &  Adjustment  Co.,    9   P.2d 
572,  122  CaLApp.  132. 

78.  Ky.—  Key  v.   Hays,   166   S.W.2d 
850,  292  Ky.  423. 

La.—  Harper  v.   Sid  iSimmons   Drill- 

ing Co.,   114   So.   647,  164  La.  767. 
H-e.—  Bemis  v.  Bradley,   133   A.   593, 

126  Me.   462,   69  A.L.R.  1399. 
Mo.—  Dreckshfcge  v.  Dreckshage,  176 

S.W.2d   7,    352   Mo.    78—  McCaskey 

v.  Duffley,  78  S.W.2d  141,  229  Mo. 

App.  289. 
N'T.—  Kilmer    Park    Const    Co.     v. 

Lehrer,   270  N.Y.S.   156,   150  Misc. 

673. 

127 


In  action  against  lessor  and  les- 
see for  damages  to  nearby  property, 
lessor  was  not  entitled  to  Judgment 
over  against  lessee  on  ground  that 
lease  contained  an  indemnification 
clause  in  its  favor,  where  the  plead- 
ings raised  no  such  issue. — Boyle  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  31  A.2d  89.  34* 
Pa.  602. 

79.    Ky. — Beaver    Petroleum    Corpo- 
ration v.  ,Whitney,    278   S.W.   565, 
212  Ky.  222. 
La.— W.  J.  &  C.   Sherrouse  v.  Phe- 

nix,  128  So.  536,  14  La.App.  629. 
Tex. — Chastain  v.  Gilbert,  Civ.App., 
145  iS.W.2d  938 — Butler  v.  Price, 
Civ.App.,  138  S.W.2d  301— Metropo- 
lis Co.  v.  Texas  Publication  House, 
Civ.App.,  44  S.W.2d  403— Stack  v. 
Ellis,  Civ.App.,  2-91  S.W.  919— 
Standard  Motor  Co.  v.  Wittman, 
Civ.App.,  271  S.W.  186— Blanken- 
beckler  v.  Kuykendall,  Civ.App., 
256  S.W.  323. 
Material  alteration 

Where  notes  were  rendered  voia 
by  material  alteration  by  payee, 
Judgment  in  amount  of  notes  was 
held  erroneous,  since  there  was  no- 
pleading  or  claim  based  on  original 
obligation  evidenced  by  the  notes. — 
Jones  v.  Jones,  71  S.W.2d  999,  25-4 
Ky.  475. 

&,    Qa. — Hatton  v.  Johnson,  121  S» 
E.  404,  157  Ga.  313. 
Tex.— Johnson   v.    Bussey.    Civ.App... 
95   S.W.2d  990,   error  refused — Se- 
curity Realty  &  Development  Co- 
v.  Jenkins,  Civ.App.,  80  S.W.2d  999- 
— Vanlandingham    v.    Terry,    Clw 
.App.,  293  S.W.  252. 
47  C.J.  p  430  note  69. 
31.    Mo.— McCrosky      V.      Burnhamr 
App.,  282  S.W.  158. 
Personal   Judgment   against   man- 
ager of  partnership  was   unauthor- 
ized, where  complaint  did  not  allege 
that  he  was  a  partner  or  that  he  had 
any  interest  in  business  and  asked, 
for    no    relief    against    him    except 
that    any    interest    he    might    have- 
should  be  foreclosed. — State  ex  rel- 
Yeatch  v.  Franklin,  98'CP.2d  724.  163 
Or.  500. 


82.  Tex.— St.    Louis,    B.    &   M.    Ry- 
Co.    v.   (Price.    Civ.App.,    244    S.W- 
642,   affirmed,   ConLApp.,   269   -S.W- 
422.     . 

83.  Corporate  nature  of  body 

A  Judgment  in  QUO  warranto  can- 
not be  sustained  where  it  is  againat 
respondents  as  officers  of  an  unin- 


§51 


JUDGMENTS. 


crs,84  recovery  of  purchase  price  of  property,85  re- 
plevin,86 rescission,87  services  rendered,88  specific 
performance,89  statutory  penalties,90  taxes  or  as- 
sessments,91 trespass,92  trusts,98  wages  and  penal- 
ties,94 workmen's  compensation,96  and  other  mat- 
ters.9« 


§  52. 


49    C.J.S, 
Nature  and  Form  of  Action 


In  general  the  Judgment  is  limited  by  the  nature  of 
the  action;  but  In  code  states,  where  the  common- 1  aw 
forms  of  pleading  have  been  abolished,  the  form  or 
name  of  the  action  does  not  control  the  relief  which  may 
be  granted. 

In  general  the  scope  of  the  judgment  is  limited 
by  the  nature  or  character  of  the  action.9?     At 


corporated  body  and  the  issue 
raised  by  the  pleadings  is  whether 
the  relators  are  entitled  to  the  offl 
ces  in  an  incorporated  body  which 
are  claimed  and  held  by  respondents 
— Commonwealth  v.  Grim,  9*9  A.  166 
255  Pa.  40. 

84.  Tex. — Commercial  Standard  Ins 
Co.  v.   Moeller.  Civ.App.,   78  S.W 
2d  2  83. 

85.  Cal.— -Young    v.    !Lial,    17    P.2d 
170,  128  Cal.App.  246. 

Ga:— Whitten  v.  McMillan,   128   S.B 

211,  34  €tauApp.  33. 
La. — Stafford  v.  Tolmas  Realty  Co. 
App.,  1-46  So.  61 — Jackson  v.  Har- 
ris, 1S6  So.  166,  18  La.App.  484, 
reinstated  137  60.  655,  18  La.App, 
484. 

Tex. — Bancroft   v.    Brown,    Civ.App, 

285  fl.W.  206— Holloway  v.  Miller, 

Civ.App.,  272  S.W.  562. 

Return  of  property 

In  an  action  for  the  balance  due 
on  the  purchase  price  of  property  in 
which  defendant  asks  only  for  dam- 
ages, or  for  a  return  of  payments 
made,  and  in  which  the  only  issue 
is  whether  there  should  be  a  money 
Judgment  in  favor  of  one  party 
against  the  other,  a  money  Judgment 
for  defendant  coupled  with  an  ad- 
judication that  the  property  be  re- 
turned to  plaintiff  is  improper.- 
Cresci  v.  Gandy,  124  A,  68,  99  N.J. 
Law  417 — Union  Garage  Co.  v.  Wil- 
ner,  120  A.  4,  98  N.J.Law  441. 
Balance  due  seller 

In  seller's  action  for  purchase 
price,  verdict  for  buyer  on  his  coun- 
terclaim for  fraud  was  unwarranted, 
where,  if  utmost  amount  shown  as 
damages  were  subtracted  from  price 
remaining  unpaid,  there  would  still 
be  a  remainder  in  seller's  favor. — 
Gross  v.  Reiners,  124  A.  811,  100 
Conti.  732. 

86.  Tenn.— Sartain  v.  Dixie  Coal  & 
Iron  Co.,  266  S.W.  313,  150  Tenn. 
633. 

33  C.J.  p  1139  note  52  [b]  (2),  (4). 

87.  Tex. — Bailey  v.  Mann,  Civ.App., 
248  S.W.  469. 

88.  Tex.— Burnell   v.   -Schmidt,   Civ. 
App.,    104     S.W.2d    551— Barnhart 
Mercantile  Co.  v.  Bengal,  Civ. App., 
77  S.W.2d  295. 

89.  La. — Derbes  v.  Rogers,  110  So. 
84,  162  La.  49. 

90.  Tex. — Jennings  Y«   Texas  Farm 
Mortgage  Co.,   80  S.W.2d  931,  124 
Tex.    593— Gibson    T.    Hicks,    Civ. 


A.pp.,  47  S.W.2d  691,  error  refused 
— National  Casualty  Co.  v.  Ma- 
honey,  Civ.App.,  296  S.W.  335. 

91.  TLS3. — Degener  v.  Anderson,  C.C. 
A.N.Y.,  77  F.2d  85-9. 

La. — State  ex  rel.  Porterie  v.  Gulf, 

Mobile  &  Northern  R.  Co.,  -184  So. 

711,  191  La.  163. 
Mo. — State   ex   rel.    Kansas    City  v. 

School    Dist.    of   Kansas    City,    62 

•S.W.2d  813,  £3(3  Mo.  288. 
Tex — Ostrom  v.  State,  Civ.App.,   88 

S.W.2d  1084. 

92.  La. — Bruning    v.    City    of   New 
Orleans,  115  So.  733,  165  La.  511. 

Tex. — Dalton  v.  Davis,  Com.App.,  1 
S.W.2d  -571 — Martin  v.  Grogan- 
Cochran  Lumber  Co.,  Civ. App.,  176 
S.W.2d  780— First  State  Bank  in 
Caldwell  v.  Stubbs,  Civ.App.,  48  S. 
W.2d  446. 

93.  Cal. — Juranek  v.  Juranek,  84  P. 
2d   195,    29   Cal.App.2d   276. 

Conn. — Waterbury  Trust  Co.  v.  Por- 
ter, 38  A.2d  598,  131  Conn.  206— 
Zitkov  v.  Gorsky,  137  A.  751,  106 
Conn.  287. 

S.D. — Colteaux  v.  First  Trust  &  Sav- 
ings Bank,  218  N.W.  151,  52  S.D. 
443. 

Tex. — Norris  y.  •Stoneham,  Civ.App., 
46  S.W.2d  S63. 

94«  Kan. — Southern  Kansas  Stage 
Lines  Co.  v.  Webb,  41  P.2d  1025, 
141  Kan.  '476. 

95.  La. — Prudhome'v.  Cedar  Grove 
Refining  Co.,  App.,  157  So.  158. 

98.  Ariz.— Price  v.  Sunfleld,  112  P. 
2d  210,  57  Ariz.  142. 

Ark, — Hunt  v.  Road  Improvement 
Dist.  No.  12  of  Woodruff  County, 
270  S.W.  961,  168  Ark.  266. 

Colo. — Buchhalter  v.  Myers,  276  (P. 
972,  85  Colo.  419. 

Ga.— Ramey  v.  McCoy.  179  <3.E.  730, 
DL80  Ga.  521. 

111.— Kohler  v.  Kohler,  61  N.E.2d 
687,  326  001.  105— Baxter  v.  Conti- 
nental Illinois  Nat.  Bank  &  Trust 
Co.  of  Chicago,  26  N.E.2d  179,  304 
IlLApp.  117. 

Kan. — Old  (Peoples  Home  of  Illinois 
Conference  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  Quincy,  111.,  v.  Miltner,  89 
P.2d  874,  149  Kan.  847. 

Ky.— Braun  v.  ©naith,  178  S.W.2d 
940,  297  Ky.  162— Key  v.  Hays, 
166  e.W.2d  8*0,  292  Ky.  423— 
Jameson  v.  Jameson,  133  S.W.2d 
923,  280  Ky.  654— Berry  v.  Riess, 
121  S.W.2d  942,  276  Ky.  114-<!hes- 
apeake  &  O.  Ry.  Co.  v.  City  of 
Olive  ECiU,  21  S.W.2d  127,  231  Ky.  I 

128 


65— Rex    Red    Ash    Coal    Co.    T. 
Powers,  290  S.W.  HO 61,  218  Ky.  93. 

Mo. — Verdon  v.  Silvara,  274  S.W.  79, 
308  Mo.  607, 

N.T.— Claris  v.  Richards,  183  N.R 
904,  260  N.T.  419. 

Or. — City  of  (Portland  v.  Hurst,  28 
P.2d  217,  ,145  Or.  415— Robinson 
v.  Oregon  City  Sand  &  Gravel  Co., 
20  OE>2d  1073,  143  Or.  177. 

S.C.— Griggs  v.  Griggs,  19  S.B.2d 
477,  199  S.C.  295. 

S.D.— Hunt  v.  Dolphin,  223  N.W.  84, 
54  3.D.  261. 

Tex. — Neyland  v.  Brown,  170  S.W.Sd 
207,  141  Tex.  253,  modified  on  oth- 
er grounds  172  S.W.2d  89,  141  Tex. 
253 — Saner- Whit eman  Lumber  Co. 
v.  Texas  &  N.  O.  Ry.  Co.,  Com. 
App.,  288  S.W.  (127,  rehearing  de- 
nied 288  S.W.  1068— Spradlin  v. 
Gibbs,  Civ.App.,  159  S.W.2d  246 — 
International  Order  of  Twelve 
Knights  and  Daughters  of  Tabor 
v.  Fridia,  Civ.App.,  91  S.W.2d  404 
— W.  L.  Moody  Cotton  Co.  v.  IPol- 
ley,  Civ.App.,  66  S.W.2d  807— Card- 
er v.  Knippa  Mercantile  Co.,  Civ. 
App.,  1  S.W.2d  462,  error  dismiss- 
ed—San Antonio  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Burd,  Civ.App.,  246  -S.W.  1060, 
modified  on  other  grounds  Burd 
v.  San  Antonio  Southern  R.  Co., 
Com.App.,  261  S.W.  1021. 

33  C.J.  p  1139  note  52  [b],  p  1151 
note  17  [b],  [c],  19  [a],  p  1152 
note  21  [a],  [c]. 

97.    Ky. — Commonwealth  v.  Kentuc- 
ky   Jockey   Club,    58    S.W.Sd    987, 
238  Ky.  7-39. 
Tex.— Forman   v.    Barroti,    Civ.App., 

120   S.W.2d   827,   error  refused. 
Tort  or  contract  see  infra  $  5-3. 
In  rein  or  in.  personam 

An  action  in   rem  will   not  sup- 
port a  judgment  in  personam. 
N.T.— Sturcke   v.   Link,    26   N.T.S.2d 

7-48,  176  Misc.  93. 
S.C. — Parker   Peanut   Co.   v.   Felder, 

34   S.E.2d   488,   207  S.C.   63. 
Aflsnmpsit;  moneys  had  and  received 
Where    an    action    in    assumpsit 
would  not  lie,  judgment  for  plaintiff 
could  not  be  supported  by  count  for 
moneys  had  and  received.-— Schweit- 
zer v.  Bank  of  America  N.  T.  &  S,  A., 
109  P.2d  441,  42  Cal.App.2d  636. 
Goods  sold  and  delivered*   indebita- 

tos  assunpsit 

The  fact  that  the  declaration 
sought  to  recover  for  goods  sold  and 
delivered  did  not  prevent  recovery 
in  indebitatus  assumpsit,  where  it 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  53 


common  law  a  judgment  must  be  warranted  by  the 
form  of  the  action.98  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  a 
judgment  in  debt  is  erroneous  where  the  declara- 
tion is  in  assumpsit"  or  in  case,1  or  in  replevin;2 
and  similarly  that,  where  the  declaration  is  in  debt, 
a  judgment  in  assumpsit8  or  in  damages4  is  er- 
roneous; but,  by  the  practice  of  the  majority  of 
states,  a  judgment  in  damages  on  a  declaration  in 
debt  will  be  good,  the  objection  being  merely  techni- 
cal,5 and,  vice  versa,  a  judgment  entered  in  debt 
instead  of  in  damages  is  good.6  On  a  declaration  in 
trespass,  a  recovery  in  case  has  been  permitted.7 

In  code  states,  the  common-law  forms  of  plead- 
ing having  been  abolished,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
courts  to  give  such  judgment  as  the  pleadings  and 
evidence  warrant,  without  regard  to  the  form  or 
name  of  the  action.8 


§  53.    Grounds  of  Action  or  Defense 

As  a  general  rule,  a  Judgment  for  a  plaintiff  must 
be  based  on  the  cause  of  action  which  he  has  alleged, 
and  not  on  some  theory  Inconsistent  with,  or  totally  dif- 
ferent from,  that  suggested  in  his  pleading.  Similarly, 
a  defendant  ordinarily  must  prevail  according  to  the  case 
made  by  his  answer. 

Relief  to,  or  a  recovery  by,  plaintiff  must  be 
based  on,  and  justified  by,  facts  alleged  in  his  plead- 
ing.9 Unless  defendant,  by  his  silence  or  conduct, 
has  acquiesced  in  the  trial  of  the  new  and  different 
cause  of  action  on  which  the  judgment  proceeded, 
as  discussed  supra  §  50,  a  plaintiff  ordinarily  must 
recover,  if  at  all,  on  the  cause  of  action  which  he 
has  alleged,  and  a  judgment  in  his  favor  must  be 
based  on  the  theory  or  ground  of  liability  on  which 
in  his  pleadings  he  has  placed  his  right  to  recover.10 


also  alleged  that  plaintiff  paid  out 
money  at  defendant's  request,  which 
was  supported  by  the  evidence  intro- 
duced.—Campbell  v.  Willis,  290  F. 
271,  53  AppJXC.  296. 

98.  Minn.-— GervaJs    v.     Powers.     1 
Minn.  45. 

33  C.J.  p  1155  note  48. 

99.  Ark.— Jones  v.  Robinson,  8  Ark. 
484. 

33  C.J.  p  1155  note  49. 

1.  Ky. — Lynch     v.     Freeland,     Ky. 
Dec.  269. 

2.  R.I.— Warren  v.  Letter,  52  A.  76. 
24  R.I.  {36. 

33  'C.J.  p  1155  note  51. 

3.  Colo. — Anderson  v.  Sloan,  1  Colo. 
484. 

33  C.J.  p  1155  note  52. 

4.  111.— Ross  v.  Taylor,  68  111.  215. 
33  C.J.  p  1155  note  53. 

5.  Vt.— Carver  v.  Adams,  40  Vt.  552. 
33  C.J.  p  1156  note  54. 

6.  Ala.— iPerdue  v.  Burnett,  Minor  p 
138. 

Ky.— Jenkins  v.  Teates,  2  J.J.Marsh. 
48. 

7.  Pa.— Miller  v.  Lehigh  County.  5 
Pa.Dist.  588. 

33  C.J.  p  1156  note  56. 

8.  U.S. — Lumbermen's  Trust  Co.  v. 
Town  of  Ryegate,  C.OA.Mont.,   61 
F.2d  14. 

Conn.— Makusevich  v.  Gotta,   13-9  A. 

780,  107  Conn.  207. 
Or.— Weith  v.  Klein,  2SS  P.  902,  136 

Or.  201. 
Tex. — Dittmar  v.  Alamo  Nat  Co.,  118 

S.W.2d  298,  132  Tex.  44. 
33  C.J.  p  1156  note  57. 

9.  Ariz.— White  v.  Hamilton,  299  P. 
124,  38  Ariz.  256— City  of  Yuma  v. 
English,   226   P.   531,   26  Ariz.   438. 

Cal. — Bridge  v.  New  Amsterdahi 
Casualty  Co.,  19  'P.2d  76,  129 
Cal.App,  35-5— Westervelt  v.  Mc- 
Cullough,  228  P.  734,  68  CaLApp. 
198— Imperial  Water  Co.  No.  4  v 

49  C.  XS.-9 


Meserve,   217  IP.   553,    62   CaI.App.  j 
603. 

Conn.— Masterton  v.  Lenox  Realty 
Co.,  15  A.2d  11,  127  Conn.  25— 
Frosch  v.  Sears,  Roebuck  &  Co., 
199  A*  646,  124  Conn.  300— <Maz- 
ziottl  v.  Di  Martino,  130  A.  844, 
103  Conn.  491. 

Ga. — Mendel  v.  Converse  &  Co.,  118 
S.E.  586,  30  Ga,App.  5*49. 

Ind.— Indianapolis  Real  Estate 
Board  v.  Willson,  187  N.E.  400,  $8 
Ind.  App.  72. 

Minn.— Hurr  v.  Davis,  198  N.W.  943, 
155  Minn.  456,  rehearing  denied 
194  N.W.  379,  155  Minn.  456,  cer- 
tiorari  denied  44  S.Ct  36,  263  U.S. 
709,  68  L.Ed..  518,  and  error  dis- 
missed 45  S.Ct  227,  267  U.S.  572, 
69  L.Ed.  794. 

Mo. — Bragg  v.  Specialty  Shoe  (Ma- 
chinery Co.,  84  <S.W.2d  184,  225 
Mo.App.  902. 

Mont.— Kramlich  v.  Tullock,  277  P. 
411,  84  Mont.  601. 

N.Y.— Garflnkel  &  Steinberg  Corpo- 
ration v.  Bandlers  Sutphin,  Inc., 
299  N.Y.-S.  536,  252  App.Div.  858 
— Blackwell  v.  Glidden  Co.,  203 
N.Y.S.  380,  208  App.Div.  317,  af- 
firmed 147  NJB.  188,  239  N.T.  5'45 
— MacLeold  v.  Miller,  201  N.Y.S. 
108. 

N.C.— Barron  v.  Cain,  4  S.E.2d  618, 
216  N.C.  282. 

Tenn. — Polk  v.  Chattanooga  Wagon 
&  Body  Co.,  2  Tenn.App.  415. 

Tex.— Jackson  v.  Cloer,  Civ.  App.,  9$ 
S.W.2d  353 — Smoot  &  Smoot  v. 
Nelson,  Civ.App.,  11  S.W.2d  578— 
Hall  v.  First  Nat  Bank,  Civ.App., 
252  S.W.  328,  modified  on  other 
grounds  254  S.W.  522. 

Utah. — Stevens  &  Wallis  v.  Golden 
Porphyry  Mines  Co.,  18  P.24  303, 
81  Utah  414. 

33  O.J.  P  1156  note  60,  p  1157  note 
61. 

Cause  or  theory  asserted  in  reply 
(1)     Ordinarily    a    judgment    may 

129 


not  be  rendered  on  a  cause  of  action 

asserted  in  a  reply. 

Ky. — Hacker  v.  Clay  County,  165  S. 

W.2d  172,  291  Ky.  614. 
Mo.— Regal  Realty  &  Investment  Co. 

v.  Gallagher,  188  S.W.  151. 
33  C.J.  p  1156  note  60  [d]. 

(2)     Where   plaintiff   in  his   com-    • 
plaint   sought   recovery    of    land    on 
the  theory  that  a  deed  to  him  was  an 
absolute  .conveyance,   and  defendant 
In  his  answer  claimed  that  the  deed 
was  in  fact  a  mortgage,  and,  where 
plaintiff  in  his  reply  sought  foreclo- 
sure' if  the  deed  were  found  to  be  a 
mortgage,  it  was  held  that  a  judg- 
ment directing  foreclosure  was  Jus-, 
tified  where  the  court  found  that  the 
deed    was    a    mortgage. — Church    v. 
Brown,  272  P.  511,  150  Wash.  173. 
New  complaint 

If  court  permits  filing  of  new  com- 
plaint to  conform  to-  proof,  judgment 
should  relate  to  new  pleading. — Bak- 
ersfield  Sandstone  Brick  Co.  v.  Cas- 
cade Oil  Co.,  23  P.2d  423,  132  CaL 
App.  633. 
liability  as  indorser 

Defendants  could  not  be  held  as 
indorsers  on  note  where  pleading 
showed  that  action  was  not  brought 
on  note. — Kern  v.  Henry,  31  P.2d  454, 
138  CaLApp.  46. 
10.  U.S.— State  Street  Trust  Co.  v. 

U.    S.,    D.C.Mass.,    37    F.Supp.    846. 

affirmed,    C.C.A.,    U.    S.    v.    State 

Street  Trust  Co.,  124  !F.2d  948. 
Ala. — Chandler  v.  Price,  15  So.M  462, 

244  Ala.  667. 
Ariz. — Jones  v.   Stanley,  233  P.  698, 

27  Ariz.  381. 
HI. — Wood  v.  Wood,  App.,  -64  N.E.2d 

385-^First  Trust  Joint  Stock  Land 

Bank  of  Chicago  v.  Cutler,  12  N.E. 
'    2d   705,   293   IlLApp.    354 — Streeter 

y.  .Humrichouse,  261  IlLApp.  556. 
Ind. — City   of   Muncie   v.   Horlacher, 

53  N.B.3d  631,  222  Ind.. 302. 
La.— Hope  v.   Madison,   183  So.  711, 

192  (La.  59$, 


§  53 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


Plaintiff  cannot  set  up  one  cause  of  action  in  his 
complaint  and  recover  on  proof  of  another  and  a 
different  cause  of  action;  nor  can  he  recover  on 


some  theory  not  suggested  in  his  declaration  or  com- 
plaint.11    It  is  particularly  true  that  recovery  on 


Me. — Morrison  v.  Union  Park  Ass'n, 
149  A.  804,  129  Me.  S8. 

Minn. — Consumers'  Grain  Qo.  v.  Wm. 
Lindeke  Roller  Mills,  190  N.W.  65, 
153  Minn.  231. 

Mo.— Pinet  v.  Pinet,  App.,  191  S.W.Sd 
362 — Palmer  v.  Marshall,  App.,  2-4 
S.W.2d  229. 

N.Y. — Jno.  Dunlop's  "Sons  v.  Alpren, 
212  N.Y.S.  307,  214  App.Div.  339— 
Varda  v.  Lynch,  19-6  N.Y.S.  641, 
203  App.Div.  53*9 — -Carroll  v.  Dryo- 
lin  Corporation,  45  N.Y.S.2d  77,  182 
Misc.  260 — Rochester  Poster  Adv. 
Co.  T.  Sm'lthers,  224  N.Y.'S.  711, 
130  Misc.  676,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  231  N.Y.S.  315,  2'24  App. 
Div.  435— Siegler  v.  Bischof,  53  N. 
Y.S.2d  657— Kirkpatrick  Home  for 
Childless  Women  v.  Kenyon,  196 
N.Y.S.  475,  affirmed  199  N.Y.S.  '851, 
206  App.Div.  728. 

N.C.— Balentine  v.  Gill,  11  S.E.2d  456, 
218  N.C.  496— Wallace  v.  Wallace, 
188  S.B.  96.  210  N.C.  656. 

Ohio. — Thompson  v.  Thompson,  181 
N.E.  272,  42  Ohio  App.  164. 

Pa.— In  re  Miller,  Com.Pl.,  32  Del. 
'Co.  'Se*. 

Tex. — Nu-Enamel  Paint  Co.  of  Texas 
v.  Culmore,  Civ.App.,  T2  S.W.2d 
390 — Tinsley  v.  Metzler,  Civ. App., 
44  S.W.2d  820,  error  dismissed — 
Gibbs  v.  Corbett,  Civ.App.,  292  S. 
W.  260 — Superior  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
C.  S.  Lee  Grain  &  Elevator  Co., 
Civ.App.,  261  S.W.  212— Trott  v. 
Flato,  Civ.App.,  244  S.W.  1085. 

33  C.J.  p  1157  note  62,  p  1158  note 

66,  p  1159  note  67. 

« 
Estoppel 

Where  a  complaint  failed  to  allege 
facts  constituting1  an  estoppel,  a 
Judgment  on  that  ground  cannot  "be 
upheld,  whether  a  cause  of  action 
could  or  could  not  have  been  main- 
tained, had  it  been  pleaded. — Gibral- 
tar Realty  Co.  v.  Security  Trust  Co., 
1.36  NiE.  636,  192  Ind.  502. 

Pailnre  of  consideration, 

In  action  by  purchaser  for  rescis- 
sion of  contract,  relief  could  not  be 
granted  for  failure  of  consideration 
where  such  failure  was  not  pleaded. 
— Clancy  v.  Becker-Arbuckle-Wright 
Corporation,  29  P.2d  868,  137  Cal. 
App.  43. 
Interest  in  land 

Petition  alleging  an  agreement  to 
purchase  land  and  divide  profits  on 
resale,  but  not  alleging  that  plain- 
tiff was  to  have  any  interest  in  the 
land,  would  not  support  a  judgment 
for  a  portion  of  the  land  still  un- 
sold.— Carothers  v.  Creighton,  Tex. 
Civ.App.,  101  S.W.Sd  631. 
11.  U.S. — Storm  Waterproofing  Cor- 
poration v.  Li.  Sonneborn  Sons,  D. 
CDel.,  28  F.2d  115— Durabilt  Steel 


iLocker  Co.  v.  Berger  Mfg.  Co.,  D. 
O.0hio,  21  F.2d  139. 

Colo. — Rio  Grande  Fuel  Co.  v.  Col- 
orado Central  Power  Co.,  63  P. 
2d  470,  99  Colo.  395. 

Conn. — Conzelman  v.  City  of  Bristol, 
188  A.  -659,  122  Conn.  218. 

Fla. — Gruber  v.  Cobey,  12  So.2d  461, 
152  Fla.  591— Foye  Tie  &  Timber 
Co.  v.  Jackson,  97  So.  517,  '86  Fla. 
97. 

Ga. — Southern  Lumber  Co.  v.  Ed- 
wards, 117  S.E.  252,  30  Ga.App. 
223. 

111. — Jacksonville  Hotel  Bldg.  Corpo- 
ration v.  Dunlap  Hotel  Co.,  264  111, 
App.  279,  modified  on  other 
grounds  183  N.E.  397,  550  111.  451. 

Ind. — Gibraltar  Realty  Co.  v.  Se- 
curity Trust  Co.,  136  N.E.  636,  192 
Ind.  '502 — Denney  v.  Peters,  10  N. 
E.2d  7-54,  104  Ind.App.  504— Nes- 
bitt  v.  Miller,  188  N.E.  702,  98  Ind. 
App.  195. 

Kan. — Harveyville  State  Bank  v.  Lee, 
234  P.  982,  118  Kan.  269. 

Ky.— Smith  v.  Collins,  '251  S.W.  979, 
199  Ky.  T70. 

Me. — Page  v.  Bourgon,  22  A.2d  577, 
138  Me.  113. 

Mo.— Smith  v.  Thompson,  161  'S.W. 
2d  232,  349  Mo.  396— State  ex  rel. 
Kennedy  v.  Remmers,  101  S.W.2d 
70,  540  Mo.  126 — Zamora  v.  Wood- 
men of  the  World  Life  Ins.  Soc., 
App.,  157  S.W.2d  601 — Wasson  v. 
Dow/ App.,  251  S.W.  69. 

Mont. — Outlook  Farmers'  Elevator 
Co.  v.  American  'Surety  Co.  of  New 
York,  223  P.  905,  70  Mont.  «. 

N.Y. — Kew  Gardens  Corporation  v. 
Ciro's  Plaza,  26  N.Y.S.2d  553,  2-61 
App.Div.  5*76 — Douglass  v.  Wolcott 
Storage  &  Ice  Co.,  295  N.Y.S.  675, 
251  App.Div.  79 — Berger  v.  Eichler, 
207  N.Y.S.  147,  211  App.Div.  479— 
Security  Bank  of  New  York  v. 
Finkelstein,  145  N.Y.S.  5,  160  App. 
Div.  315,  affirmed  112  N.B.  1076, 
217  N.Y.  707— Bernstein  v.  East 
167th  Street  Corporation,  293  N. 
Y.S.  109,  161  Misc.  836?— Rosen- 
blum  v.  Pas  Holding  Corporation, 
28  N.Y.S.2d  '589. 

Or. — McCann  v.  Oregon  Scenic  Trips 
Co.,  209  P.  483,  105  Or.  213,  fol- 
lowed in  'Smith  v.  Oregon  Scenic 
Trips  Co.,  209  P.  486,  10'5  Or,  222. 

S.D. — Metropolitan  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Frick,  245  N.W.  921,  -61  S.D.  9. 

Tex. — Johnson  Aircrafts  v.  Wilborn, 
Civ.App.,  190  S.W.2d  426— City  of 
Temple  v.  Mitchell,  Civ.App.,  180 
S.W.2d  959— City  State  Bank  in 
Wellington  v.  Wellington  Inde- 
pendent School  Diet,  Civ.App.,  173 
S.W.2d  738,  affirmed  178  S.W.2d 
114,  142  Tex.  344— Chamblin  v. 
Webb,  Civ.App.,  155  S.W.2d  676— 
Strack  v.  Strong,  Ctv.App.,  114  S. 

130 


W.2d  313,  error  dismissed — Stuard 
v.  Vick,  Civ.App.,  9  S.W.2d  494, 
error  dismissed — Rockhold  v. 
Lucky  Tiger  Oil  Co.,  Civ.App.,  4 
S.W.2d  1046,  error  dismissed — 
American  Law  Book  Co.  v.  Dykes, 
Civ.App.,  4  S.W.2d  630— First  State 
Bank  of  Wortham  v.  Bland,  Civ. 
App.,  291  S.W.  650— C.  A.  Bryant 
Co.  v.  Hamlin  Independent  School 
Dist.,  Civ.App.,  274  S.W.  266. 
Wis. — Lee  v.  Pauly  Motor  Truck  Co., 

190  N.W.  '819,  179  Wis.  139. 
33  C.J.  p  1157  note  62,  p  1159  note  67. 
Public  or  private  way 

In  a  suit  brought  on  the  theory  of 
the  existence  of  a  private  way,  judg- 
ment cannot  be  based  on  the  theory 
that  the  road  or  way  was  a  public 
one. 
Cal.— Hare  v.  Craig,  276  P.  336,  206 

Cal.  753. 

Utah. — Thornley    Land    &    Livestock 
Co.  v.  Morgan  Bros.  Land  &  Live- 
stock Cd,  17  P.2d  '826,  81  Utah  817. 
Contract  as  oral  or  written 

(1)  Judgment  on  wholly  written 
contract  has  no  support  in  pleadings 
declaring  on  partly  written  contract. 
— C.  A.  Bryant  Co.  v.  Hamlin  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.,  Civ.App.,  IS  S. 
W.2d     750,     certified    questions    an- 
swered 14  S.W.2d  53,  118  Tex.  255. 

(2)  In  suit  to  recover  for  inter- 
ference with  contract,   where   plain- 
tiff  alleged   a   contract    in   writing, 
plaintiff   was   not   entitled   to   relief 
for   interference   with  an   oral   con- 
tract collateral  to  written  contract. — 
Tompkins  v.  Sullivan,  48  N.E.2d  15, 
313  Mass.  459. 

Negligence;   trespass 

(1)  Where    the    allegations    and 
trial    are   based    exclusively   on   the 
theory  of  negligence,  recovery  on  a 
ground  other  than  negligence  is  not 
permissible. 

Conn. — Epstein  v.  City  of  New  Ha- 
ven, 132  A.  467,  104  Conn.  283. 

N.Y. — Rock  v.  Radice  Electric  Co., 
223  N.Y.S.  659,  131  Misc.  51. 

33  C.J.  p  1158  note  66  [a]  (1),  (5), 
C7),  p  1159  note  67  [a]  (2). 

(2)  A   judgment   based  on   negli- 
gence   is    not   supported    by   allega- 
tions solely  of  trespass. 

Mo.— Mawson  v.  Vess  Beverage  Co., 

App.,  173  S.W.-2d  606. 
Tex. — Michels    v.    Crouch,    Civ.App., 

122  S.W.2d  '211. 

53  C.J.  p  1159  note  67  [a]  (10),  (11). 
ISTature  of  tenancy 

Where  plaintiffs  alleged  and  trial 
proceeded  on  theory  that  defendants 
were  hold-over  tenants  for  one  year, 
it  was  error  to  grant  judgment  for 
plaintiffs  on  ground  that  tenancy 
was  from  month  to  month  and  that 
proper  notice  of  intention  to  quit 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


53 


an  inconsistent  theory  will  not  be  permitted.12  In 
some  jurisdictions,  however,  a  party  is  entitled  to 
any  relief  appropriate  to  the  facts  alleged  and 
proved,  irrespective  of  the  theory  on  which  they 
may  be  alleged  j1*  and  the  fact  that  a  party  has 
pleaded  an  erroneous  theory  does  not  bar  him  from 
recovering  if  the  facts  he  has  pleaded  support  a 
proper  theory  of  recovery.** 

Proof  of  a  different  cause  of  action  from  that  al- 
leged in  the  declaration  or 'complaint  amounts  to  a 
failure  of  proof,  and  is  not  a  mere  variance;15 
but,  where  the  substantial  facts  creating  the  liabili- 


ty are  alleged  and  proved,  a  recovery  may  be  had, 
although  they  are  alleged  inaccurately  in  detail,  be- 
cause this  does  not  amount  to  a  change  of  theory 
or  a  recovery  on  grounds  not  alleged.16  Where  re- 
covery is  sought  on  several  grounds,  a  judgment 
supported  by  one  of  the  grounds  is  proper  notwith- 
standing the  failure  to  establish  the  other  grounds 
of  liability;17  but  in  such  case  the  judgment  must 
be  supported  by  all  the  elements  of  at  least  one  of 
the  different  grounds  of  recovery.18 

Ordinarily  defendant  must  prevail,  if  at  all,  ac- 
cording to  the  case  made  by  his  answer  ;19  but  this 


had    not    been    given. — McAuley    v. 

Cresci,  19  N.Y.S.2d  221. 

Recovery   wider   different    statutory 

provision, 

(1)  Plaintiff   cannot  sue   on   one 
statute   and   sustain   verdict  Justifi- 
able only  on  different  statute. — Bat- 
terton   v.   Pima  County,  271  P.  720, 
34  Ariz.  347. 

(2)  However,       although       facts 
proved  did  not  make  out  breach  of 
warranty  under  subdivision  of  stat- 
ute   on    which    plaintiff   relied,    but 
made  out  breach  of  warranty  under 
another    subdivision,    plaintiff    was 
held  entitled  to  judgment — Ryan  v. 
Progressive-Grocery  Stores,  175  N.E. 
105.  255  N.T.  3'88,  74  A.L.R.  339. 
Retention  of  property 

Buyer's  complaint  to  recover  price 
of  property  after  rescission  for 
breach  .of  warranty  and  offer  to  re- 
turn did  not  authorize  judgment 
based  on  breach  of  warranty  per- 
mitting buyer  to  keep  the  property. 
— Schmelzer  v.  Winegar,  216  N.Y.S. 
507,  217  App.Div.  194. 
12.  Ark. — H.  V.  Beasley  Music  Co. 

v.   Cash,    262    S.W.    656,    164   Ark. 

572. 
Colo. — Cattell  v.  Denver  State  Bank, 

225  P.  271,  75  Colo.  150. 
N.Y.— Lunger  v.  New  York  Life  Ins. 

Co.,   225   N.Y.S.  730,  131  Misc.  42. 
33  C.J.  p  1160  note  68. 
Affirmance    of   contract 

Where  purchaser  elected  to  affirm 
contract  and  sued  for  damages  for 
breach,  the  court  was  without  au- 
thority to  render  judgment  for  can- 
cellation of  deed  and  a  return  of  the 
purchase  price. — Freeman  v.  Ander- 
son, Tex.Civ.App.,  119  S.W.2d  1081. 
Rescission;  fraud 

Decree  for  rescission  of  sale  of 
stock  was  unauthorized  where  pur- 
chaser sued  for  damages  for  fraud. 
— Bondurant  v.  Raven  CJoal  Co.,  Mo. 
App.,  25  S.W.2d  566. 
Property  as  community  or  separate 

Judgment  for  plaintiff  on  finding 
that  property  awarded  her  was  sep- 
arate property  required  reversal, 
where  her  pleadings  alleged  that  it 
was  community  property. — Bray  v. 
Bray,  Tex.Civ.App.,  1  S.W.2d  625. 


13L  CaL — Estrin  v.  Superior  Court 
in  and  for  Sacramento  County,  96 
P.2d  340,  14  Cal.2d  670— Lucas  v. 
Assodacao  Protectora  Uniao  Mad- 
eirense  Do  Estado  Da  California, 
143  P.2d  53,  61  Cal.App.2d  344— 
Bank  of  America  Nat  Trust  & 
Savings  Ass'n  v.  Casady,  59  P.2d 
444,  15  Cal.App.2d  163— Lacey  v. 
McConnell,  48  P.2d  161,  9  Cal.App. 
2d  6. 
Accounting1 

If  plaintiff  has  a  cause  of  action 
of  which  court  has  jurisdiction,  and 
accounting  is  necessary  to  determine 
his  rights,  accounting  will  be  or- 
dered "  regardless  of  erroneous  legal 
theory  on  which  the  action  is  based. 
— Nelson  v.  Abraham,  CaLApp.,  162 
P.2d  833. 

14.  Cal.— Mannon  v.  Pesula,  139  P. 
2d  336,  59  Cal.App.2d  597. 

15»     Wash. — McLachlan    v.    Gordon, 

150  P.  441,  86  Wash.  282. 
33  C.J.  P  1158  note  64. 

10.    Va. — Lawson  v.  Conoway,  1-6  S. 

E.  564,  37  W.Va,  159/18  L.R.A.  G27, 

35  Am.S.R.  17. 
33  C.J.  p  1160  note  69. 
Actions  on  notes 

(1)  Judgment    for    plaintiff    was 
not  erroneous  on  ground  that  plain- 
tiff declared  on  promissory  note  £.nd 
proved   defendant  Indebted  on   bills 
of  exchange. — ^tna  Inv.  Corporation 
v.   Barnes,   Mo.App.,   52   S.W.2d  221. 

(2)  Where   complaint   was   based 
on  note  given  for  money  loaned,  con- 
tention  that  judgment   was   entered 
for  money  loaned,  and  hence  was  im- 
proper, was  without  merit. — Casset- 
ta  v.  Bairaa,  288  P.  330,  106  CaLApp. 
196. 

17.  Ala. — Robinson  v.  Solomon  Bros. 
Co.,  155  So.  553,  229  Ala.  137. 

Ind. — American   Carloading  Corpora- 
tion   v.     Gary    Trust    &    Savings 
Bank,  25  N.E.2d  777,  216  Ind.  649. 
y.— Peck  v.  Trail,  65  S.W.2d  83,  2-51 
Ky.  377. 

Wis. — Krier  Preserving  Co.  v.  West 
Bend  Heating  &  Lighting  Co.,  225 
N.W.  200,  198  Wis.  595. 

18.  Tex.— West  Texas  Utilities  Co. 

131 


v.    Dunlap,    Civ.App.,    175    S.W.2d 
749. 

19.  U.S. — El  Dorado  Terminal  Co.  v. 
General  American  Tank  Car  Cor- 
poration, C.C.A.Cal.,  104  P.2d  903, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  60  S.Ct 
325,  308  U.S.  422,  84  L.Ed.  361,  re- 
hearing denied  60  S.Ct  4-65,  309 
U.S.  694,  84  L.Ed.  1035. 

CaL— -Brown  v.  Sweet,  272  P.  614,  95 
CaLApp.  117. 

Ga. — Alliance  Ins.  Co.  v.  Williamson, 
137  S.E.  277,  36  Ga.App.  497— 
Stewart  v.  Hardin,  101  S.E.  716,  24 
Ga.App.  611. 

111. — Rosenthal  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion of  City  of  Chicago,  110  N.E. 
579,  270  111.  380— Thulin  v.  Ander- 
son, 154  Ill.App.  41. 

Iowa. — Hornish  v.  Overton,  221  N.W. 
483,  206  Iowa  780. 

La. — Homes  v.  James  Buckley  &  Co., 
116  So.  218,  165  La.  874. 

Mass. — Shattuck  v.  Wood  Memorial 
Home,  66  .N.E.2d  568— Pollard  v. 
Ketterer,  108  N.B.  1086,  221  Mass. 
317. 

Mo.— Lebrecht  v.  New  State  Bank, 
Woodward,  OkL,  205  S.W.  273,  199 
Mo.App.  -642— White  v.  United 
Brothers  and  Sisters  of  Mysteri- 
ous Ten,  App.,  180  S.W.  406. 

N.Y.— Marshall  v.  Sackett  &  Wil- 
helms  Co.,  151  N.Y.S.  1045,  166 
App.Div.  141— Continental  Bank  & 
Trust  Co.  of  New  York  v.  Good- 
ner,  49  N.Y.S.2d  747 — Junco  v.  La 
Cabana,  Inc.,  20  N.Y.S.2S  781,  af- 
firmed 25  N.Y.S.2d  779,  261  App. 
Div.  803. 

Or.— Wolf  v.  Hougham,  12*5  P.  801, 
62  Or.  264. 

Pa. — Gliwa  v.  U.  S.  Steel  Corpora- 
tion, 185  A.  $84,  322  Pa.  225,  cer- 
tiorari  denied  57  S.Ct  117,  299 
U.S.  593,  81  L.Ed.  437— McCormick 
v.  Harris,  196  A.  885,  130  Pa.Super. 
175. 

Tex. — Dashiel  v.  Lott,  Com.App.,  243 
S.W.  1072— Ohastain  v.  Gilbert, 
Civ.App.,  145  S.W.Sd  938— Wardy 
v.  Casner,  Civ.App.,  108  S.W.2d  772,~ 
error  dismissed— Sproles  v.  Rosen, 
Civ.App.,  47  S.W.2d  331,  affirmed  84 
S.W.2d  1001,  126  Tex.  51— Bennett 
V.  Giles,  Civ.App.f  12  S.W.2d  843— 


§  53 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


is  not  unqualifiedly  true,20  and,  where  the  burden  of 
proof  is  on  plaintiff,  defendant  is  entitled  to  take 
advantage  of  a  failure  of  proof,  regardless  of  the 
pleadings.21 

Tort  or  contract.  A  pleading  sounding  in  tort 
will  not  support  a  judgment  based  on  a  contract,22 
and  conversely,  under  a  pleading  on  a  caiise  of  ac- 
tion sounding  in  contract,  a  recovery  as  for  a  tort 
is  erroneous.2*  it  has  been  held  that  these  rules 
have  not  been  changed  by  code  provisions;24  but 
it  has  also  been  held  that,  under  statutes  abolish- 
ing forms  of  action  and  requiring  that  merits  only 
shall  be  considered,  recovery  may  be  had  in  con- 
.  tract,  if  the  allegations  and  proof  support  such  a 
right,  although  the  declaration  sounds  in  tort.25 
Where  a  pleading  sets  forth  two  causes  of  action, 
one  in  contract  and  the  other  in  tort,  and  defendant 
has  not  requested  a  separation  of  the  causes,  plain- 


Oscar  v.    Sackville,    Civ.App.,    253 

'S.W.  651. 

33  C.J.  p  1161  note  75. 
Failure  of  consideration;   fraud 

Where  defense  pleaded  in  an  ac- 
tion on  contract  was  failure  of  con- 
sideration, but  case  was  submitted 
to  jury  on  theory  of  fraudulent  rep- 
resentations whereby  defendant  was 
fraudulently  induced  to  execute  con- 
tract sued  on,  judgment  for  defend- 
ant could  not  stand.— Chamblin^v. 
Webb,  Tex.Civ.App.,  155  S.W.2d  676. 

Bight  of  way 

In  action  to  Quiet  title  to  land  en- 
cumbered with  right  of  way,  judg- 
ment for  designated  defendants 
could  not  be  sustained  on  ground 
that  suit  established  way  of  neces- 
sity, where  such  right  was  not  al- 
leged or  adjudicated.— Bertolina  v. 
Frates,  57  P.2d  346,  89  Utah  238. 
Deduction  of  premium 

Insurer,  defending  on  single  the- 
ory that  policy  was  void,  was  not  en- 
titled to  deduction  for  unpaid  premi- 
um—Masson  v.  New  England  Mut. 
Life  Ins.  Co.,  260  P.  367,  85  CaLApp. 
633. 
go,  K.Y.— Whiting  v.  Glass,  111 

IB.  1082,  217  N.Y.  335. 
33  'C.J.  p  H61  note  76. 
Inability  to  plead  laches 

Where  the  theory  that  plaintiff's 
case  was  based  on  fraud  was  flrsi 
disclosed  by  his  reply  and  was  noi 
indicated  by  the  complaint  so  that 
defendant  could  not  plead  laches,  al- 
though he  was  entitled  to  do  so,  de- 
fendant was  nevertheless  entitled  to 
insist  on  such  defense  if  there  was 
evidence  to  support  it.— -Crosby  v 
Bobbins,  182  P.  12-2,  66  Mont.  179. 
21.  Wash.— Easter  v.  Hall,  40  P 

728,  12  Wash.  160. 
33  C.J.  P  H61  n°te  77. 


tiff  may  recover  on  either  one  which  he  may 
prove,2*  although  he  may  not  recover  on  both.27 

General  and  special  assumpsit.  Plaintiffs  who 
sue  on  a  special  or  express  contract  ordinarily  can- 
not recover  on  an  implied  contract,  such  as  a  quan- 
tum meruit,  and  vice  versa,28  although  in  some  cas- 
es such  recovery  has  been  permitted.29  Where  the 
declaration  or  complaint  contains  counts  or  allega- 
tions seeking  recovery  on  an  implied  contract  apart 
from  the  special  contract,  a  recovery  thereon  may 
be  had.80  Under  the  common  counts  no  recovery 
may  be  had  for  breach  of  a  special  contract.31 

Legal  or  equitable.  Under  codes  and  practice  acts 
it  has  frequently  been  made  the  duty  of  the  court 
to  grant  such  relief  as  the  complaint  and  the  proof 
thereunder  show  plaintiff  entitled  to  receive,  with- 
out any  distinction  between  law  and  equity.32  The 
relief  granted,  however,  must  nevertheless  be  con- 
sistent with  the  case  made  by  the  complaint.33  If 

Recovery  Held  proper 

A  contract  to  act  as  defendant's 
business  agent,  although  not  con- 
templating lawsuits,  necessarily  in- 
cluded services  in  connection  there- 
with if  necessary,  as  in  procuring 
witnesses,  and  hence  recovery  for 
such  services  was  on  the  express 
contract  pleaded  aJid  not  on  an  im- 
plied contract — Crawford's  Adm'r  v. 
Ross,  186  S.W.2d  797,  -299  Ky.  664. 


22.    U.S.-^Tohnston   v.   Venturing   C. 

€.A.Pa.,  -294  P.  S3 6. 
Tex.— Joe  B.   Winslett,   Inc.  v.  City 

of    Hamlin,    Civ.App.,    "56    S.W.2d 

237— McFaddin    v.    Sims,    97    S.W. 

335,    45    Tex.Civ.App.   598. 
33  C.J.  p  1161  note  73. 
Fraud 

Judgment   cannot   be   rendered   as 
on   contract  or  in  assumpsit  where 
the  complaint  is  in  fraud.  . 
Mich. — Barber   v.    Kolowich,    277   N. 

W.  189,  283  Mich.  97. 
N.Y.— Smith  v.  Cohen,  175  N.E.  361, 

'256  N.Y.  33. 
33  C.J.  p  1161  note  78  [b]. 
Conversion 

Plaintiff  electing  to  sue  In  con 
version  could  not  recover  in  as- 
sumpsit for  money  had  and  received. 
— Maxol  Syndicate  v.  N.  T.  Hege- 
man  Co.,  245  N.Y.S.  99,  158  Misc. 
179. 

23.  Tex._joe    B.    Winslett,    Inc.    v. 
City  of  Hamlin,  Civ.App.,  56  S.W. 
2d  237. 

33  C.J.  p  1161  note  79. 

24.  N.Y.— Degraw  v.  Elmore,  50  N 
Y.  1. 

33  C.J.  P  H62  note  80. 

25.  Miss.^Southeastern  Exp.  Co.  v 
Namie,  181  So.  515,  182  Miss.  447 

23.  Colo.— Erisman  v.  McCarty,  236 
P.  ?77,  77  Colo.  289. 

27.  Colo. — Erisman  v.  McCarty,  su- 
pra. 

281     Ind. — Indianapolis    Real    Estat 

Board  v.  Willson,  187  N.E.  400,  9 

Ind.App.  72. 
Me. — Dufour  v.  Stebbins,  145  A.  893 

128  Me.  133. 
N.Y.-^Sears    v.    Hetfield,    221   N.Y.S 

494,  220  App.Div.  725. 
33  C.J.  p  1160  note  70. 


29.  CaL— Warder  v.  Hutchison,   231 
P.  563,  69  CaLApp.  291, 

33  C.J.  P  1161  note  71. 

30.  S.C.— Cleveland  v.  Butler,  78  S. 
E.  SI,  94  S.C.  406. 

!  -C.J.  p  1161  note  T2. 

31.  Mich.— £5ook  v.  Bade,   158  N.W. 
175,  191  Mich.  561. 

53  C.J.  p  11-61  note  73. 

32.  Cal.— Waters  v.  Woods,  42  P.2d 
1072,    5    Cal.App.2d    483— Arbucklo 
v.  Clifford  F.  Reid,  Inc.,  4  P.2d  978, 
118  CaLApp.  272. 

Okl. — Fernow    v.    Gubser,    162    P.2d 
529 — Owens  v.   Purdy,   217  P.   425, 
90  Okl.  2'56. 
33  C.J.  p  1162  note  83. 
Enforcement  of  legal  right*  accord. 

Ing  to  rules  of  law 
Where,  although  plaintiff  asks 
equitable  relief,  he  alleges  and 
proves  only  such  facts  as  entitle  him 
to  strict  legal  rights,  court  will  en- 
force his  legal  rights,  but  only  ac- 
cording to  strict  rules  of  law. — 
Grant  v.  Hart,  14  S.B.2d  860,  192  Ga. 
153. 

33.  MO.— Congregation   B'Nai   Abra- 
ham  v.   Arky,   20  S.W.2d  1899,   323 
Mo.  '776— Bragg  v.   Specialty  Shoe 
Machinery  Co.,  54  S.W.2d  1*4,  225 
Mo.App.  90*2. 

33  C.J.  p  1162  note  84. 


132 


49    G.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


|54 


the  complaint  is  framed  solely  for  equitable  relief, 
even  under  the  code,  where  the  same  court  admin- 
isters both  systems  of  law  and  equity,  the  party 
must  maintain  his  equitable  action  on  equitable 
grounds  or  fail,  even  though  he  may  prove  a  good 
cause  of  action  at  law  on  the  trial84  Averment 
of  an  equitable  cause  of  action  and  proof  of  only 
a  legal  cause  of  action  has  been  held  to  be  a  vari- 
ance amounting  to  a  failure  of  proof;85  but,  where 
an  equitable  cause  of  action  is  established,  the  judg- 
ment may  award  legal  relief,  as  for  example,  by 
way  of  damages,  in  lieu  of  equitable  relief  which 
in  the  particular  case  is  impracticable  or  inequita- 
ble.86 Where  the  facts  alleged  will  support  either 
legal  or  equitable  relief,  or  both,8?  or  where,  by  ac- 
quiescence and  failure  to  object,  the  issues  have 
been  broadened  so  as  to  include  the  legal  cause  of 
action,88  a  judgment  on  the  legal  cause  of  action 
is  proper,  although  the  equity  fails.  Where  the 
complaint  alleges  only  a  cause  of  action  at  law, 
and  the  proof  fails  to  establish  the  cause  of  ac- 
tion alleged,  equitable  relief  ordinarily  will  not  be 


awarded,  although  it  appears  that  plaintiff  would 
be  entitled  thereto  on  a  properly  framed  com- 
plaint;89 but  equitable  relief  may  be  granted,  al- 
though only  legal  relief  is  prayed,  where  both  the 
allegations  and  the  proofs  show  that  plaintiff  is  en- 
titled to  equitable  relief.40 

§  54.    Amount  of  Recovery 

a.  In  general 

b.  Interest 

a.  In  General 

The  judgment  must  conform  to  the  pleadings  and 
proof  with  respect  to  the  amount  of  the  recovery,  al- 
though a  recovery  for  more  than  the  sum  demanded  may 
be  proper  where  permitted  by  statute,  or  where  by  con- 
sent  of  the  parties  the  pleadings  have  been  enlarged  by 
the  evidence.  An  excessive  judgment,  although  erro- 
neous and  subject  to  correction,  Is  not  on  that  account 
void. 

In  amount,  as  in  other  respects,  a  judgment  must 
conform  to,  and  be  supported  by,  the  pleadings41 
and  the  proof.42  A  judgment  for  more  than  the 


34.  Or. — McCann    v.    Oregon    Scenic 
Trips  Co.,  209  P.  483,  105  Or.  213, 
followed  in  Smith  v.  Oregon  Scenic 
Trips  Co.,  209  P.  486,  105  Or.  222. 

33  C.J.  p  1162  note  85. 

35.  N.Y.-- Jackson  v.  Strong  118  N. 
E.  512,  222  N.T.  149. 

33  C.J.  p  1163  note  86. 

36.  111.— Stella    v.    Mosele,    27   N.B. 
2d  559,  305  111.  App.  577, 

33  C.J.  p  1163  note  87. 

Retention    of  jurisdiction  by   equity 

to  afford  legal  relief  see  Equity  § 

69. 

37.  U.S. — Hagar   v.    Townsend,    C.C. 
N.T.,   $7   •P.    433,   affirmed   72   Fed. 
949,   19  C.C.A.  256. 

33  C.J.  p  1163  note  89. 

38.  N.Y. — Fairchild  v.  -Lynch,  42  N. 
Y  Super.  265. 

33  C.J.  p  1163  note  90. 
Issues  broadened  by  consent  see  su- 
pra $50. 

39.  N.C.— McParland  v.  Cornwell,  66 
S.E/454,  1-51  N.C.  42'8. 

33  C.J.  p  1163  note  92. 

40.  N.Y.— Hale  T.  Omaha  Nat.  Bank, 
49  N.Y.   626. 

33  C.J.  p  1163  note  93. 

41.  Ky. — Asher  v.  Pioneer  Coal  Co., 
283   S.W.   954,  214  Ky.  505. 

La. — Ethrldge-Atkins  Corporation  v. 
Abraham,  App.,  160  So.  817— Unity 
Plan  Finance  Co.,  v.  Green,  App., 
148  So.  297,  annulled  on  other 
grounds  151  So.  85,  reversed  on 
other  grounds  155  So.  900,  179 
La.  1070 — Bird  v.  Johnson,  133  So. 
516,  16  La.Ajpp.  155. 

N.Y. — Universal  Steel  Export  Co.  v. 
N.  &  G.  Taylor  Co.,  203  N.Y.&  331, 


'208  App.Div.  308,  affirmed  147  N.E. 
209,  239  N.Y.  '594. 

N.C. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Slmms 
v.  Sampson,  20  S.E.2d  554,  559, 
221  N.C.  379. 

Pa. — Zuber  v.  Rinko,  Com.Pl.,  10  Sch. 
Reg.  159.  •  . 

Tex.— New  York  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Eng- 
lish, 72  S.W.  58,  9-6  Tex.  268— 
Kaufman  Oil  Mill  v.  Republic  Nat. 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  Civ. App.,  43  S. 
W.2d  269. 

33  C.J.  p  1163  note  95. 

Absence  of  issue  limiting-  plaintiffs' 

interest 

Where  defendant  had  withdrawn 
an  answer  alleging-  as  a  pro  tanto 
defense  that  the  two  plaintiffs  were 
not  the  only  heirs  of  the  ancestor 
under  whom  they  claimed,  without  re- 
iterating- that  allegation  in  the 
amended  answer,  the  court,  on  find- 
ing for  plaintiffs,  properly  adjudged 
them  to  be  the  owners  of  the  entire 
interest  in  the  property  involved, 
since  there  was  no  Issue  limiting 
their  interest— Asher  v.  Gibson,  248 
S.W.  862,  198  Ky.  285. 
m  partition 

(1)  As    a    general    rule    plaintiff 
should    not    be    awarded    a    greater 
share  of  the  property  than  he  claims. 
— Carr  v.  Langford,  Civ. App.,  144  "S. 
W.2d  612,  affirmed  Langford  v.  Carr, 
159   S.W.2d  10*7,  138  Tex.  330 — 47  C. 
J.  p  430  note  66. 

(2)  However,  the  fact  that  com- 
plainant alleges  himself  to  be  enti- 
tled to  a  smaller  interest  in  the  lands 
than  that  to  which  he  is  really  enti- 
tled under  the  facts  alleged  by  him 
has  been  held  to  be  no  bar  to  a  de- 
cree vesting  in  him  his  proper  share. 

133 


Ky. — King  v.  Middlesborough  Town- 
lands  Co.,  50  S.W.  37,  106  Ky.  73, 
20    Ky.L.    1859,    rehearing    denied 
and   opinion   extended   106   Ky.   73, 
50  S.W.  1108,  20  Ky.L.  1859. 
N.Y.— Lamb  v.  Lamb,  14  N.Y.S.  206, 
affirmed  -30  N.E.  133,  131  N.Y.  227. 
Reservation,  of  issue  for  further  de- 
termination 

Where    determination    of    lessors' 
liability  for  sublessee's  trespass  was 
reserved    for    further    adjudication, 
amount  of  lessors'  liability  was  not 
limited  by  amount  sought  in  origi- 
nal and  amended  petition. — Davis  v. 
Kentland  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,   57  S.W. 
2d  542,     247  Ky.  642. 
Judgments  held  proper 
Conn. — Winsor  v.   Hawkins,    37   A.2d 

222,  130  Conn.  669. 
Tex. — Shropshire  v.  Jones,   Civ.App., 
129    S.W.2d    4SO— Hill    v.    Willett 
Civ.App.,    281    S.W.    1110 — Decatur 
[Land,  Loan  &  Abstract  Co.  v.  Rut- 
land, Civ.App.f  185  S.W.  1064. 
42.    N.C. — Corpus    Juris    quoted    in 
Simms  v.  Sampson,  20  S.E.2d  554, 
559,  221  N.C.  379. 

Tex. — Zaunbrecher      v.      Trim,      Civ. 
App.,   31  S.W.2d  *839 — Fidelity  Un- 
ion Fire  Ins.   Co.   v.   Barnes,   Civ. 
App.,  293  S.W.  279. 
W.Va, — De  Stubner  v.  United  Carbon 

Co.,  28  S.B.2d  59-3,  126  W.Va,  3«63. 
33  C.J.  p  1164  note  96. 
Erroneous  basis  of  value 

Judgment  In  amount  based  on 
price  contended  for  by  neither  par- 
ty to  action  for  balance  due  on  mer- 
chandise sold  at  price  to  be  fixed  on 
future  date  was  erroneous,  legal 
rights  of  parties  and  interest  of  pub- 
lic at  large  demanding  finding  on 


i  54 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


.mount  admitted  or  established  to  be  due  cannot 
tand.43  Ordinarily  a  judgment  cannot  properly  be 
•endered  for  a  greater  sum,  whether  by  way  of  debt 
>r  damages,  than  is  claimed  or  demanded  by  plain- 


tiff in  his  declaration  or  complaint,44  plus,  as  dis- 
cussed infra  subdivision  b  of  this  section,  interest 
in  proper  cases,  and  costs,45  notwithstanding  the  ev- 
idence may  prove  a  greater  debt  or  a  greater 


)asls  of  value  in  keeping-  with  con- 
;ention  of  one  side  or  other. — Max- 
yell  Planting  Co.  v.  A.  P.  Loveman 
&  Co.,   102   So.   45.  212  Ala.  228. 
Rents  or  damages 

(1)  A    judgment    awarding    rents 
3r  substantial  damages  in  an  action 
Df    ejectment    should    be    based    on 
testimony  as  to  their  value. — Hahn  v. 
Cotton,    37   S.W.   919,   136   Mo.   216— 
19  C.J.  p  1240  note  IB. 

(2)  However,    in    some    jurisdic- 
tions, it  seems,  no  further  proof  is 
required,  where  an  allegation  of,  and 
claim  for,  damages  in  a  verified  com- 
plaint  is   not   controverted. — Patter- 
son v.  Ely,  19  Cal.  28. 

43.    Cal. — King  v.  San  Jose  Keystone 

Mining  Co.,   127   P.2d   286,   53   Cal. 

App.2d  40 — Robinson  v.  Arthur  R. 

Lindburg,   Inc.,    3'5   P.2d   1057,    140 

Cal.  App.  669. 
Ga. — Fred     Didschuneit     &.    Son     v. 

Enochs  -Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  156  S. 

B.  720,  42  Ga.App.  527. 
Ky.— Equitable    Life    Assur.    Soc.    of 

U.  S.  v.  Austin,  72  S.W.2d  716,  255 

Ky.  23. 
Mo. — Hecker  v.  Bleish,  3  S.W.2d  1008, 

319  Mo.  149— Vogt  v.  United  Rys. 
'•Co.    of  St.   Louis,   App.f    251   S.W. 

416. 

N.Y. — Nassau  Suffolk  Lumber  &  Sup- 
ply Corporation  v.  Bruce,  '3'8  N.Y. 

S.2d   75,   265   App.Div.   879,   appeal 

denied   39    N.Y.S.2d    618,    2-65    App. 

Div.  1002. 
N.C. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Simms 

v.     Sampson,    20    S.E.2d    554,    559, 

221  N.C.  379. 
Or. — Olds  v.  Von  der  Hellen.  270  P. 

497,  127  Or.  276. 
Tex. — Leftwich     v.     Summers,     Civ. 

App.,    89    S.W.2d   1091— Southwest- 
ern Bell  Telephone  Co.  v.  Burris, 

Civ.App.,  68  S.W.2d  542. 
Wash.— Babare    v.    Rodman,    226    P. 

1015,  130  Wash.  317. 
33  C.J.  p  1164  note  97—19  C.J.  p  1240 

note  16. 
Agreed  valuation 

Where  the  agreed  valuation  of  loss 
of  goods  sustained  by  a  shipper  was 
a  certain  amount,  it  was  error  to  en- 
ter judgment  for  a  larger  amount. — 
Lancaster  v.  Houghton,  Tex.Civ.App., 
249  S.W.  1103,  error  dismissed  45 
S.Ct.  194,  266  U.S.  590,  69  L.Ed.  456. 

Mortgage     as     security    for    future 

debts 

In  absence  of  proof  of  agreement 
to  'make  the  mortgage  security  for 
debts  subsequently  contracted,  in 
awarding  decree  for  amount  of  the 
mortgage  only  there  was  no  error. — 
Hoy  v.  Biladeau,  223  P.  241,  110  Or. 
591. 


Judgments  held  not  excessive 

Cal. — Estrin  v.  Fromsky,  12'7  P.2d 
603,  '0*3  Cal.App.2d  253— Du  Pont  v. 
Allen,  294  P.  409,  110  CaLApp.  -541. 

111. — Simpson  v.  Heberlein,  259  111. 
App.  -579. 

Tenn.— Gore  v.  McDaid,  178  S.W.2d 
221,  27  Tenn.App.  111. 

Tex.— Dallas  Coffin  Co.  v.  Roach,  Civ. 
App.,  93  S.W.2d  548,  error  dis- 
missed— Stephens  v.  Reik,  Civ. 
App.,  247  S.W.  627. 

44.  U.S. — Williamson  v.  Chicago 
Mill  &  Lumber  Corporation,  C.C.A. 
Ark.,  59  F.2d  918— Brown  v.  Minn- 
gas  Co.,  D.C.Minn.,  51  F.Supp.  363. 

Ala. — Wyatt  v.  Drennen  Motor  Co., 
125  So.  -649,  220  Ala.  413— Gowan 
v.  Wisconsin- Alabama  Lumber  Co., 
110  So.  31,  215  Ala.  231. 

Cal. — Merced  Irr.  Dist.  v.  San  Joa- 
quin  Light  &  Power  Corporation, 
29  P.2d  843,  220  Cal.  196— Corpus 
Juris  quoted  in  Meisner  v.  Mcln- 
tosh,  269  P.  612,  205  Cal.  11— Frost 
v.  Mighetto,  71  P.2d  932,  22  CaL 
App.2d  612 — Monterey  Park  Com- 
mercial &  'Savings  Bank  v.  Bank  of 
Hollywood,  13  P.2d  976,  125  'Cal. 
App.  402 — Adjustment  Corporation 
v.  Marco,  279  P.  1006,  100  CaLApp. 
•338 — Capitol  Woolen  Co.  v.  Berger, 
262  P.  351,  87  CaLApp.  500. 

111.— Klatz  v.  Pfeffer,  164  N.E.  224, 
333  I1L  90— Shealy  v.  Schwerin,  46 
N.E.2d  184,  317  111. App.  375— Burns 
v.  Kaylor,  264  IlLApp.  469. 

Ky.— Fidelity  &  Casualty  Co.  of  New 
York  v.  Breathitt  County,  123  S. 
W.2d  250,  276  Ky.  173. 

La,— Reimers  v.  Hebert,  111  So.  91, 
162  La.  772— Cuba  v.  iLykes  Broth- 
ers-Ripley  S.  S.  Co.,  App.,  193  So. 
411 — Huff  v.  Fitzsimmons,  132  So. 
257,  15  La.App.  441. 

Miss.— Watkins  v.  Blass,  145  So.  348, 
1-64  Miss.  325. 

Mont. — Clifton,  Applegate  &  Toole  v. 
Big  Lake  Drain  Dist.  No.  1,  Still- 
water  County,  267  P.  207,  '82  Mont. 
312— Harbolt  v.  Hensen,  253  P.  257, 
•78  Mont.  228. 

Nev. — Donohue  v.  Pioche  Mines  Co., 
277  P.  980,  Si  Nev.  403,  rehearing 
denied  279  P.  759,  51  Nev.  402. 

N,J. — Goldberger  v.  City  of  Perth 
Amboy,  197  A.  267,  16  N.J.Misc.  84 
— Bozza  v.  Leonardis,  131  A.  27, 
3  N.J.Misc.  1186. 

N.Y. — Cavagnaro  v.  Bowman,  34  N. 
Y.S.2d  637,  264  App.Div.  118,  ap- 
peal denied  36  N.Y.S.2d  187,  264 
App.Div.  853 — Smith  v.  Dairymen's 
League  "Co-op.  Ass'n,  58  N.Y.S.2d 
376. 

Or. — Leonard  v.  Bennett,  106  P.2d 
542,  165  Or.  157— Haberly  v.  Farm- 
ers' Mut  Fire  Relief  Ass'n,  293  P. 

134 


590,    135    Or.    32,   rehearing  denied 
294  P.  594,  135  Or.  32. 
Pa. — Porter  v.  Zeuger  Milk  Co.,  7  A. 

2d  77,  136  Pa.Super.  48. 
Tenn. — Mullins      v.      Greenwood,      6 

Tenn.App.  327. 

Tex. — Denman  v.  Stuart,  17-6  S.W.2d 
730,  142  Tex.  129— Savage  Oil  Co.* 
v.  Johnson,  Civ.App.,  141  S.W.2d 
994,  error  dismissed,  judgment  cor- 
rect— Federal  Underwriters  Ex- 
change v.  Popnoe,  Civ.App.,  140  S. 
W.2d  484,  error  dismissed — Dallas 
Ry.  &  Terminal  Co.  v.  Wells,  Civ. 
App.,  60  S.W.2d  485,  error  refused 
— Bell  v.  Beckum,  Qiv.App.,  44  S. 
W.2d  389 — Dalton  v.  Realty  Trust 
Co.,  Civ.App.,  13  S.W.2d  398 — Os- 
ceola  Oil  Co.  v.  Stewart  Drilling 
Co.,  '  Civ.App.,  246  S.W.  698,  re- 
versed on  other  grounds,  Com.App., 
258  S.W.  806. 
Wis.— In  re  Kehl's  Estate,  254  N.W. 

639,  21'5  Wis.  353. 
19  C.J.  p  1240  note  1€— 33  C.J.  p  1164 

note  1—42  'C.J.  p  1300  note  83. 
Double  indemnity 

Where  an  insurance  policy  pro- 
vides for  the  payment  of  a  double  in- 
demnity for  injuries  sustained  under 
specified  conditions,  the  double  In- 
demnity cannot  be  recovered  unless 
specially  claimed  in  the  complaint. — 
Crowder  v.  Continental  Casualty  Co., 
91  'S.W.  1016,  115  Mo.App.  -535. 
•Cumulative  recovery 

(1)  In  a  suit   on  a  contract  for 
cutting    and    loading    timber,    where 
plaintiffs  alleged  that  they  were  to 
pay  the  expense  out  of  their  profits, 
a  recovery  of  both  profits  and   ex- 
penses was  erroneous  as  cumulative. 
— Branson  v.  Hamilton  Ridge  Lum- 
ber Corporation,  115  S.B.  624,  122  S. 
C.  436. 

(2)  In  proceeding  under  writ   of 
seizure,  where  judgment  is  taken  for 
amount  sued  for  with  interest,  and 
property  seized  was  valued  in  judg- 
ment at  such  amount,  rendering  fur- 
ther judgment  for  damages  for  de- 
preciation  of  property  was   error. — 
Willsford    v.    Meyer-Kiser    Corpora- 
tion,   104    So.    29'3,   139   Miss.    387. 

45.     Tex. — Christian       v.        Parmer 

County,  Civ.App.,  293  S.W.  234. 
33  C.J.  p  1166  note  3. 
Absence  of  specific  claim  for  costs 

(1)  The   costs   that  are   properly 
recovered  as  such  in  the  judgment 
as  an  incident  to  the  main  adjudica- 
tion  are  ordinarily  not   required   to 
be  specifically  claimed  in  the  plead- 
ings.— State  v.  Barrs,  99  So.  668,  -87 
Fla.  1-68. 

(2)  A     statutory     allowance     as 
costs  may  be  included  in  the  judg- 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


§  54 


amount  of  damage  than  was  alleged  by  plaintiff.46 
A  judgment  for  more  than  the  amount  originally 
claimed  or  demanded,  however,  may  be  proper 
where  by  consent  or  without  objection  of  the  par- 
ties the  pleadings  are  enlarged  by  the  evidence  and 
are  deemed  amended  so  as  to  conform  to  the  testi- 
mony;47 and,  where  the  averment  of  the  amount  of 
damages  is  deemed  immaterial  or  surplusage,  the 
judgment  may  exceed  the  damages  claimed.48  Fur- 
ther, under  some  statutory  provisions,  where  de- 
fendant has  appeared  and  answered,  the  amount  of 


the  judgment  may  be  greater  than  the  sum  demand- 
ed, should  the  case  justify  it.49  A  judgment  which 
includes  an  item  of  damages  not  within  the  issues 
raised  by  the  pleadings50  or  established  by  the  evi- 
dence51 is  erroneous.  Where  a  bill  of  particulars 
is  filed,  a  recovery  is  in  general  limited  by  the 
amount  therein  specified.52 

The  validity  of  a  judgment  usually  is  not  affected 
by  the  mere  fact  that  recovery  is  for  a  sum  less 
than  the  claim  originally  asserted.5^  Thus  single 
damages  are  recoverable,  although  the  declaration 


ment,  although  not  claimed  in  the 
declaration. — Paddock  v.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.App.  328. 
Costs  held  improper 

(1)  Plaintiff,    in    action    to    fore- 
close land  contract,  who  prayed  for 
possession    and    foreclosure    of    de- 
fendant's rights  and  for  "such  other 
and  equitable  relief  as  may  be  just 
and  equitable/'  was  held  under  stat- 
ute not  entitled  to  recover  costs  of 
defendant  who  put  in  appearance  but 
made  no  defense. — Doolittle  v.  High- 
lands  Sheep  Co.,   200   N.W.   381,   184 
Wis.  625. 

(2)  In    suit    to    set    aside    deed, 
court  erred  in  taxing  costs  against 
defendant,    although  plaintiff   recov- 
ered a  money  judgment,  where  such 
judgment  was  proved  solely  by  con- 
cessions of  defendant  as  a  witness, 
no   costs   were   incurred  therein,   no 
claim  had  been  made  for  it  in  peti- 
tion, and  no  dispute  had  existed  be- 
tween   parties    over   it— Dunning  v. 
Benson,  204  N.W.  260,  200  Iowa  121. 

46.  Cal.— Brown  v.  Ball,  12  P.2d  28, 
123  Cal.ApD.  758; 

La, — Vincent  *v.  Cooper,  App.,  24  So. 
2d  503— Nona  Mills  Co.  v.  W.  W. 
Gary  Lumber  Co.,  App.,  127  So. 
425,  annulled  132  So.  257,  15  La. 
App.  560. 

S.C. — Carolina  Veneer  &  Lumber  Co. 
v.-  American  Mut  Liability  Ins. 
Co.,  24  S.E.2d  153,  202  S.C.  103. 

Tex. — Hartford  Accident  &  Indemni- 
ty Co.  v.  MQpre,  Civ.App.,  102  S. 
W.2d.  441,  error  refused — Traders 
&  General  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lincecum, 
Civ.App.,  81  S.W.2d  549,  reversed 
on  other  grounds  107  S.W.2d  585, 
130  Tex.  220. 

33  C.J.  p  1166  note  5. 

47.  CaL— Yule  v.  Miller,  252  P.  733, 
80  CaLApp.  609. 

La.— Ethridge-Atkins  Corporation  v. 
Abraham,  App.,  160  So.  817. 

Tex. — Foxworth-Galbraith  Lumber 
Co.  v.  Southwestern  Contracting! 
Corporation,  Civ.App.,  165  S.W.2d 
221,  error  refused. 

Issues  broadened  by  consent  see  su- 
pra §  50. 

43.     Mont — Loeb  v.  Kamak,  1  Mont* 

152. 
33  C.J.  p  1166  note  4. 


49.    Idaho. — Berg  v.  Aumock,   59   P. 

2d  726,  56  Idaho  798. 
Mo. — Bieser    v.    Woods,    150    S.W.2d 

524,   236  Mo. App.  126,  transferred, 

see  147  S.W.2d  656,  347  Mo.  437. 
Wis.^-City  of  Wauwatosa  v.  Union 

Free   High  School  Dist.   of  Town 

and  City  of  Wauwatosa,  2-52  N.W. 

351,  214  Wis.  35. 
33  C.J.  p  1166  note  10. 
Limitation   of   default   judgment    to 

amount  demanded  see  infra  §  214. 

Amendment  increasing  amount 

Where,  in  an  action  on  a  policy, 
plaintiff  filed  an  amended  petition 
increasing  the  original  amount  sued 
for,  it  was  held  not  error  to  permit 
recovery  in  the  increased  amount, 
defendant  having  admitted  that 
plaintiff's  claim  amounted  to  such 
sum. — Investors'  Mortg.  Co.  v.  Ma- 
rine &  Motor  Ins.  Co.  of  America, 
99  So.  486,  155  La.  627. 

Statutory  double  damages 

In  an  action  brought  under  a  stat- 
ute allowing  double  damages,  where 
plaintiff  alleges  that  he  has  been 
damaged  in  a  certain  amount  for 
which  he  asks  judgment  and  for  all 
other  and  proper  relief  according  to 
the  statute,  the  court  may  render 
judgment  for  double  the  actual  dam- 
ages assessed  by  the  jury,  although 
there  was  no  formal  prayer  in  the 
complaint  for  double  damages. — Car- 
penter v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  95  S. 
W.  985,  119  Mo.App.  204. 

In  California 

(1)  The   supreme   court  has  held 
that    recovery    in     excess    of    the 
amount  demanded  in  the  complaint 
is  unauthorized,  although  an  answer 
has    been    filed. — Meisner    v.    Mcln- 
tosh,  269  -P.   612,   205   Cal.   11. 

(2)  However,  there  is  some  lower 
court  authority  holding  that  a  judg- 
ment in  excess   of  the  amount   de- 
manded is   not   erroneous   where  an 
answer  has  been  filed. — McKesson  v. 
Itepp,   217  P.  802,   62  CaLApp.   619 — 
Kimball  v.  Swenson,   196  P.  781,   51 
CaLApp.  361. 

(3)  Amount  erroneously  demanded 
in  cross  complaint  was  held  immate- 
rial, where  relief  granted  was  con 

s  .s tent  with  law  and  embraced  with*  I 

135 


in  issues. — Du  Pont  v.  Allen,  294  OP. 
409,  110  CaLApp.  541. 

50.  Idaho. — Independent       School 
Dist.  No.  22  of  Washington  Coun- 
ty   v.    Weiser    Nat.    Bank,    263   P. 
997,  45  Idaho  554. 

Ky, — Johnson  v.  Bngle,  67  S.W.2d 
938,  252  Ky.  634. 

Mo. — Zweifel  v.  Lee-Schermen  Real- 
ty Co.,  App.,  173  S.W.2d  690. 

Okl. — Electrical  Research  Products 
v.  Haniotis  Bros.,  <39  P.2d  42,  170 
Okl.  150. 

Tex. — Albaugh-Wright  Lumber  Co. 
v.  Henderson,  Civ.App.,  33  S.W.2d 
228. 

Particular  items  held  not  allowable 

(1)  Loss  of  rent. — Love  v.  Nash- 
ville Agr.  &  Normal  Inst,   6  Tenn. 
App.  104. 

(2)  Uncollected   premiums. — Fidel- 
ity-Phenix    Fire    Ins.    Co.    of    New 
York  v.  Jackson,  181  S.W.2d  625,  181 
Tenn.  453. 

(3)  Market  value  of  accessories. — 
Brooks    -Supply    Co.    v.    First    State 
Bank   of   Blectra,    Tex.Civ.App.,    292 
S.W.   631. 

51.  Mo. — Zweifel    v.    Lee-Schermen 
Realty  Co.,  App.,   173  -S.W.2d   690. 

52.  Fla.— Florida    East    Coast    Ry. 
Co.    v.    Acheson,    140    So.    467,    102 
Fla,   15,  certiorari  denied  52   S.Ct. 
407,    285    U.S.    551,    76    L.Ed.    941. 

111.— McNeff  v.  White  Eagle  Brewing 
Co.,  13  N.E.2d  493,  294  Ill.App. 
37. 

33  C.J.  p  1166  note  8. 

53.  Ala. — Jones    v.    Belue,    200    So. 
886,  241  Ala.  22. 

Cal. — Marsh  v.  Arch  Rib  Truss  Co., 

133  P.2d  412,  56  Cal. App. 2 d  811. 
111. — Yellow  Cab  Co.  v.  Newberry 

Library,   252  IlLApp.    5 84. 
Recovery  for  partial  loss 

Recovery  may  be  had  for  a  par- 
tial insurance  loss,  although  the  dec- 
laration claims  for  a  total  loss  and 
there  is  no  proof  of  an  abandonment. 
—Watson  v.  Insurance  Co.  of  North 
America,  4  Dall.,  Pa,,  283,  1  L.Ed. 
835. 
Recovery  pro  tanto 

Where  part  of  charge  set  forth 
in  the  declaration  and  proved  shows 
•ight  of  fiction,  plaintiff  is  entitled 
_o  recover  pro  tanto. — Pickett  v. 


§  54 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


or  complaint  improperly  claims  treble  damages  tin- 
der a  statute.54  A  judgment  for  less  than  the  prcv>f 
requires,  however,  is  erroneous,55  and,  where  plain- 
tiff is  entitled  to  the  entire  amount  sued  for  or 
else  to  nothing  at  all,  a  judgment  for  a  part  only 
is  erroneous.56 

Ad  damnum  clause.  According  to  some  authori- 
ties, the  amount  of  recovery  is  limited  by  the  ad 
damnum  clause  of  the  pleading.57  According  to 
others,  a  judgment  for  the  amount  shown  due  by  the 
declaration  or  petition  may  be  given,  although  it  is 
greater  than  the  damages  laid  in  the  ad  damnum 
clause  proper.5*  Where  the  judgment  is  greater 
than  the  amount  shown  due  by  the  pleading,  it  is 
erroneous,  although  within  the  amount  laid  in  the 
ad  damnum  clause.59 

Attorney's  fees.  An  allowance  of  attorney's  fees 
must  be  supported  by  the  pleadings60  and  proof.61 
Even  where  an  allowance  for  attorney's  fees  is 


proper,  the  allowance  should  not  be  in  excess  of 
the  amount  demanded  or  prayed,62  and  in  any  event, 
where  attorney's  fees  are  not  involved  in  the  action 
or  embraced  by  the  pleadings,  the  judgment  should 
not  award  as  such  fees  more  than  the  amount  re- 
quired to  be  taxed  as  costs.63 

Installment  payments.  In  a  suit  on  an  obligation 
payable  in  installments,  a  judgment  awarding  re- 
covery for  installments  falling  due  between  the 
filing  of  the  suit  and  the  date  of  the  judgment  must 
be  supported  by  the  pleadings  ;64  but,  under  appro- 
priate pleadings,  the  inclusion  of  such  installments 
in  the  judgment  has  been  held  proper.65 

Set-off  or  counterclaim.  In  the  absence  of  an 
agreement  by  the  parties,66  the  court  should  not 
allow  set-offs,  credits,  or  deductions  because  of 
matters  not  pleaded  or  litigated.67  The  amount  of 
a  set-off  or  counterclaim  asserted  by  defendant  can- 
not exceed  that  set  forth  or  claimed  in  his  plead- 


Kuchan,    1A8   N.E.    667,    323    111.    138, 
49  A.L.R.  499. 

54.  Colo. — Cramer  v.  Oppenstein,  27 
P.  713,  16  Colo.  495. 

33  C.J.  p  1166  note  12. 

55.  Mo.— Cable  v.  Metropolitan  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  128  S.W.2d  1123,  233  Mo. 
App.  1093. 

N.C.— Corpus  Juris  quoted  in  Simms 
v.  Sampson,  20  S.E.2d  554,  559, 
221  N.C.  -379. 

35  C.J.  p  1164  note  98. 

56.  N.Y. — Community     Oil     Co.     v. 
Guido,  62  N.Y.S.2d  465. 

33  C.J.  p  1164  note  99. 

57.  Fla.—Woods-Hoskins- Young  Co. 
v.   Stone  &  Baker  Const   Co.,  114 
So.  366,  94  Fla.  586. 

Mass. — Sullivan  v.  Jordan,  86  N.E.2d 

387,  310  Mass.  12. 
Mich. — Detroit   Trust   Co.  v.   Lange, 

255     N.W.     320,     267     Mich.     69— 

Daines  v.  Tarabusi,   229  N.W.  422, 

250  Mich.  217. 

58.  Ky. — Gilbert   v.    Berryman,    255 
S.W.  839,  200  Ky.  824. 

Tex. — Cretien  v.  Kincaid,  Civ.App., 
84  "S.W.2d  109"4,  affirmed  Kincaid  v. 
Cretien,  111  -S.W.2d  1098,  130 
Tex.  513— Goodrich  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  Civ.App.,  70  -S.W.2d  609,  er- 
ror refused. 

33  C.J.  p  1166  notes  4  [a]  (2),  6. 

59.  U.S. — H.    H.'   Hornfeck   &   Sons 
v.    Anderson,    C.C.A.N.Y.,    60    F.2d 
38. 

Mich. — Walz  v.  Peninsular  Fire  Ins. 
Co.  of  America,  191  N.W.  230,  221 
Mich.  326,  reheard  194  N.W.  124, 
22#  Mich.  417. 

33  C.J.  p  1166  note  7* 

60.  Cal.— Atkins  v.  Hughes,  282  P. 
787,      208     Cal.      508— McCain     T. 
Burch,  267  OE>.  748,  92  CaLApp.  141. 

HI.: — 'Peterson  v.  'Evans,  6  N.E.2d 
520,  288  ULApp.  623. 


La.— Huff  v.  Fitzsimmons,  132  So. 
257,  15  La.App.  441. 

Mo. — Burns  v.  Ames  Realty  Co., 
App.,  31  S.W.2d  274. 

.Tex.— Himes  v.  Himes,  Civ.App.,  55 
S.W.2d  .181. 

Utah.— Skeen  v.  Smith,  286  P.  633,  75 
Utah  464. 

33  C.J.  p  1164  note  1  [d]. 

Attorney's   fees    held  proper 

Idaho.-nColorado  Nat.  Bank  of  Den- 
ver v.  Meadow  Creek  Live  Stock 
Co.,  211  P.  1076,  36  Idaho  509. 

Tex.— East  Texas  Title  Co.  v.  Parch- 
man,  Civ.App.,  116  S.W.2d  497,  er- 
ror dismissed. 

33  C.J.  p  1166  note  13  [a]. 

61.  Fla. — Jackson    v.    Walker,     126 
So.  7(46. 

Mo. — Globe  American  Corporation  v. 

Miller,    131    S.W.2d    340,    2:34    Mo. 

App.  25;3. 
33  C.J.  p  1164  note  1  [d]  (4). 

62.  Cal.— Hartke  v.  Abbott,   6  P.2d 
•578,  119  CaLApp.  439. 

Kan.— Wellington  v.  Mid-West  Ins. 
Co.,  212  P.  892,  112  Kan.  687. 

63.  Ky. — Logan  County  Fiscal  Court 
v.  Childress,  243  S.W.  1038,  196  Ky. 
1. 

64.  Tenn.— OPhifer    v.  .Mutual    Ben. 
Health  &  Accident  Ass'n,  148  S.W. 
2d  17,  24  Tenn.App.  600. 

65.  Wis. — Numbers  v.  Union  Mortg. 
Loan  Co.,  247  N.W.  442,  211  Wis. 
30. 

Payment  of  annuity  until  satisfac- 
tion of  judgment 

Where  insured  prayed  for  monthly 
annuity  accruing  until  Judgment  and 
for  general  relief,  court  could  prop- 
erly direct  that  insurer  pay  until 
satisfaction  of  judgment— Manuel  v. 
Metropolitan  Life  Ins.  Co.,  LeuApp., 
13*9  So.  548. 

136 


66.  Minn.— Oolby  v.   Street,   195   N. 
W.  34,  155  Minn.  157. 

Offer   by   plaintiff   to   make    deduc- 
tion 

Although  defendant,  sued  for 
wrongful  detention  of  an  automobile 
repaired  by  him,  did  not  counter- 
claim for  the  amount  due  for  re- 
pairs, but  plaintiff  offered  to  deduct 
such  amount  from  the  damages  al- 
lowed, the  amount  due  for  repairs 
should  be  deducted  from  the  judg- 
ment.—Ledwell  v.  Entire  Service 
Corporation,  2-31  N.Y.S.  565,  224  App. 
Div.  43i3,  affirmed  170  N.E.  188,  252 
N.Y.  548. 

67.  Oal.— Hesse       v.       Commercial 
Credit  Co.,  275  P.  970,  97  Cal.App. 
600. 

Minn.— Colby    v.    Street,    19-3    N.W. 

.34,  155  IMinn.  157. 
Miss.— S.  M.  Weld  &  Co.  v.  Austin, 

65  So.  247,  107  Miss.  279. 
N.J.— Automobile  Ins.   Co.   of  Hart- 
ford, Conn.  v.  Conway,  ,158  A.  480, 
109  N.J.Eq.  628. 

Teac. — Moss   v.    Thompson,    Civ.App., 
72   S.W.2d  •'875-^American  Grocery 
Co.  v.  Union  Sugar  Co.,  Civ.App., 
246  S.W.  418. 
Credit  for  payment  by  codefendant 

In  conversion,  where  a  third  par- 
ty's lien  on  converted  chattel  is 
paid  by  codefendant  of*  converter, 
such  payment  cannot  be  credited  to 
converter,  where  pleadings  authorize 
no  such  relief.— Brooks  Supply  Co. 
v.  Gallinger,  Tex.Civ,App.,  279  S. 
W.  524. 
Damage  not  shown 

Judgment  authorizing  defendants 
to  set  off  against  notes  for  pastur- 
age shortage  in  acreage  must  be  re- 
versed, in  absence  of  evidence  of 
damage  by  shortage.— Hutchison  v. 
Hamilton,  Tex.ConouApp.,  14  S.W.2d 
823. 


49    C.J.S. 


JUDGMENTS 


ings,68  notwithstanding  the  proof  shows  that  he  is 
entitled  to  more.69 

Effect  of  excessiveness;  correction.  A  judgment 
which  is  merely  excessive  under  the  pleadings  and 
proofs,  although  erroneous  and  liable  to  be  re- 
versed, is  not  on  that  account  void,70  and,  where 
the  excess  is  very  small,  the  maxim  de  minimis  non 
curat  lex  applies.71  An  excessive  judgment  may 
generally  be  corrected  by  modification  either  in  the 
trial  court  or  on  appeal,72  and  usually  the  party  re- 
covering an  excessive  judgment  is  permitted  to  re- 
mit the  excess  and  take  a  judgment  for  the  proper 
amount.7** 

b.  Interest 
An  allowance  of  Interest  should  be  supported  by  the 


pleadings  and  proof;  but  In  some  Instances  Interest  has 
been  held  allowable,  although  the  complaint  contained 
no  prayer  therefor  and  the  judgment  was  thereby  brought 
above  the  ad  damnum  clause.' 

In  order  that  a  party  may  be  entitled  to  interest, 
he  should  make  such  a  case  by  his  pleadings  and 
proof  as  calls  for  its  allowance.74  Where  such  a 
case  is  made  out,  however,  an  allowance  of  interest 
is  proper  ;?5  and  it  has  been  held  that,  where  in- 
terest is  allowable,  judgment  therefor  may  be  ren- 
dered, although  interest  is  not  demanded  or  prayed 
for  in  the  complaint,76  thereby  bringing  the  judg- 
ment above  the  ad  damnum  clause.77  A  judgment 
allowing  interest  must  be  in  conformity  with  the 
pleadings  and  proof  with  respect  to  the  rate  of  in- 
terest78 and  the  date  from  which  it  is  to  be  comput- 
ed.™ 


68-    Ala. — Bradford  v.  Lawrence,  94 

So.  103,  208  Ala,  248. 
N.J. — Metropolitan    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Mullor,  129  A.  148. 

A    reconventional   demand    cannot 
be  allowed  in  an  amount  exceeding 
that     claimed. — Continental     Supply 
Co.    v.    Hoell,    129    So.    522,    170   La, 
898 — Homes    v.    James    Buckley    & 
Co.,   116   So.  218,  165  La.   874— Lady 
Ester    Lingerie    Corp.    v.    Goldstein, 
La.App.v  21  So.2d  398. 
Judgment  held  proper 
N.C. — Casper    v.    Walker,    188    S.E. 

99,  210  N.C.  838. 

69.  Ky. — Pictorial     Review    Co.     v. 
Smith,  300  S.W.  871,  222  Ky.  323. 

70.  U.S.— Huddleston  v.  Dwyer,  C.C. 
A.OkL,  145  F.2d  ail. 

Ga. — Lang  v.  South  Georgia  Inv.  Co., 

U44  S.E.  149,  38  Ga.App.  430. 
Mass.— Sullivan  v.  Jordan,  36  N.B.2d 

387,  310  Mass.  12. 
Mich. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in  Baran- 

cik    v.    Schreiber,    224    N.W.    848, 

349,  246  Mich.  361. 
Mont. — Thompson  v.  Chicago,   B.   & 

Q.    R.    Co.,    25i3    P.   813,    78    Mont 

170. 
Mo. — Drake    v.    Kansas   City   Public 

Service    Co.,    41    S.W.2d   1066,   226 

Mo.App.    365,   rehearing  denied  54 

S.W.2d  427. 
Vt. — Santerre    v.    Sylvester,    189    A. 

159,  108  Vt  435. 
33  C.J.  p  1167  note  14. 
Hot  jurisdictional 

Error  in  granting  judgment  In  ex- 
cess of  amount  alleged  in  ad  dam- 
num clause  of  declaration  is  not  ju- 
risdfetional. — Detroit  Trust  Co.  v. 
Lange,  255  N.W.  320,  267  Mich.  69. 

71.  Mich. — Bowen  v.  Rutland  School 
Dist  No.  9,  36  Mich.  149. 

33  C.J.  p  1167  note  16. 

72.  Ala.— 'Lister   v.   Vowell,    25    So. 
564,  122  Ala.  264. 

33  C.J.  p  1167  note  18. 

73.  Mass. — Sullivan    v.    Jordan,    36 
N.E.2d   387,   810   Mass.   12. 


Tex. — Hartford  Accident  &  Indem- 
nity Co.  v.  Moore,  Civ.App.,  102  S. 
W.2d  441,  error  refused. 

33  C.J.  p  1167  note  20. 

74.  La.— Crowe    v.    Equitable    Life 
Assur.  8ot>.  of  U.   S.,   154   So.   52, 
179  La.  444 — Roussel  v.  Railways 
Realty   Co.,   115   So.    742,    165    La. 
556 — Merchants'  &  Farmers'  Bank 
&  Trust  Co.  v.  Hammond  Motors 
Co.,  113  So.  763,  164  La,  57. 

Mo. — Kansas  City  v.  Haivorson,  177 

S.W.2d    495,    352    Mo.    280— Motor 

Acceptance  v.   Clayton,   App.,   119 

S.W.2d  996. 

Nev.^Gray    v.    Coykendall,    6    P.2d 

442,  53  Nev.  466. 

Okl.-^Central  Nat  Oil  Co.  v.  Conti- 
nental Supply  Co.,  249  P.  347,  119 
Okl.  1-90. 

Tex.— West  Lumber  Co.  v.  Hender- 
son, Com.App.,  252  S.W.  1044 — 
Texas  &  N.  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Llde,  Civ. 
App.,  U44  S.W.2d  685,  error  dis- 
missed—Lone Star  Finance  Corpo- 
ration v.  Schelling,  CivJLpp.,  80  S. 
W.2d  358 — Berryman  v.  Norfleet, 
Civ.App.,  41  S.W.2d  722,  error  dis- 
missed—Humble Oil  &  Refining 
Co.  v.  Kishi,  Civ.App.,  299  S.W.  687 
— Brooks  Supply  Co.  v.  First  State 
Bank  of  Electra,  Civ.App.,  292  S. 
W.  631 — Sparrow  v.  Tillman,  Civ.. 
App.,  283  S.W.  877— Kuehn  v. 
Kuehn,  Civ.App.,  259  S.W.  290. 
33  C.J.  p  1168  note  26. 
failure  to  attach  note  or  pray  for 

interest  thereon 

Judgment  should  not  include  in- 
terest where  note  sued  on  was  not 
attached  to  petition,  it  was  not  al- 
leged that  note  bore  interest,  and 
no  interest  was  prayed  for. — Sentney 
v.  Sinclair,  286  P.  269,  130  Kan.  360. 

75.  U.S.— Anglo      California      Nat 
Bank  of  San  Francisco  v.  Dazard, 
C.C.A.Cal.,  106  F.2d  693,  certiorari 
denied  60   S.Ct.   379,   308   U.*S.  624, 
84    L.Ed.    521—Brown   Paper   Mill 
Co.  v.   Frazier,   C.C.A.La.,   76   F.2d  | 
65 — Alabama  Chemical  Co.  y.  In- 1 

137 


ternational  Agr.  Corporation,  C.C. 
A.Ala.,  35  F.2d  907,  certiorari  de- 
nied 50  S.Ct  240,  281  U.S.  727,  74 
L.Ed.  1144. 

Ga. — Lang  v.  South  Georgia  Inv.  Co., 
144  S.B.  149,  38  Ga.App.  430. 

Tex.— Leath  v.  Prince,  Civ.App.,  278 
S.W.  865. 

33  C.J.  p  1166  note  2. 

76.  Cal. — Deaux  v.  Trinidad  Bean  & 
Elevator  Co.,   47   P.2d  535,   8  Cal. 
App.2d  149. 

Mich. — Hollingsworth      v.      Liberty 
Life  Ins.  CO.  of  Illinois,  127  N.W. 
908,  241  Mich.  675. 
Where  an  answer  has  been  filed, 
the    court    may    allow    interest    al- 
though it  was  not  prayed  for  In  the 
complaint,   if   it   is   consistent  with 
the  case  made  by  the  complaint  and 
embraced    within    the    issues.— Per- 
ry v.  Magneson,  279  P.  650,  207  Cal. 
617. 

77.  Mich. — Thomson     Spot     Welder 
Co.  v.  Oldberg  Mfg.  Co.,  2^0  N.W. 
93,    256    Mich.    447— Hollingsworth 
v.  Liberty  Life  Ins.  Co.  of  Illinois, 
217  N.W.  908,  241  Mich.  675. 

78.  Mo. — Krause  v.  Spurgeon,  App., 
256  S.W.  1072. 

Tex. — Douglas    v.    Smith,    Civ.App., 

2-97  S.W.  767. 
33  C.J.  p  1168  note  26  tb]. 

79.  Ky. — Furnace   Gap    Coal   Co.   v. 
White,   74   S.W.2d   4,   255  Ky.   351. 

Mo. — Von  Schleinitz  v.  North  Hotel 

Co.,  23  S.W.2d  64,  i323  Mo.  1110. 
S.C. — Molony  &  Carter  Co.  v.  Pennell 

&   Harley,    169    S.E.   283;   169   S.C. 

462. 

C.J.  p  1'168  note  26  CbL 
Due  date 

Where  petition  alleged  sale  of 
stock  of  goods  on  specified  date,  and 
that  balance  due  was  to  be  paid  a 
certain  number  of  days  thereafter, 
judgment  allowing  interest  from  the 
date  payment  was  to  be  made  was 
in  accord  with  pleadings.— rKavune- 
das  v.  Long,  265  S.W.  790,  205  Ky. 
321. 


555 


JUDGMENTS 


49    C.J.S. 


§  55.    Conformity  to  Verdict,  Decision,  and 
Findings  in  General 

a.  In  general 

b.  Special  verdict,  decision,  or  findings 

a.  In  General 

A  Judgment  must  be  supported  by,  and  conform  to, 


the  verdict,  decision,  or  findings  In  all  substantial  par, 
tlculars. 

It  is  a  well-established  principle  of  law,  applica- 
ble to  both  cases  tried  by  the  courtso  and  cases  tried 
by  a  jury,81  that  the  judgment  must  be  supported 
by,82  and  conform  to,8*  the  verdict,  decision,  or 
findings  in  all  substantial  particulars.  In  accord- 


so,    N.Y.— Troughton      v.      Digmore 

Holding   Co.,    173    N.T.S.    659,    105 

Misc.  638. 
Tex.— El    Continental    Pub.    Co.    v. 

Blumenthal,    Civ.App.,    63    S.W.2d 

1056. 

81.  Constitutional  guaranty  of  Jury 
trial    is    violated    if    the    judgment 
does   not  conform  to  the  verdict. — 
North  v.  Atlas  Brick  Co.,  Tex.Com. 
App.,   15  S.W.2d  59,  motion  granted 
in  part  16  S.W.2d  519. 

82.  U.S. — HI  Dorado  Terminal  Co.  v. 
General  American   Tank  Oar  Cor- 
poration,  C.OA.CaL,   104  P.2d  903, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  60  S.Ct. 
325,  308  U.S.  422,  84  L.Ed.  361,  re- 
hearing denied  60  S.Ct.  465,  309  U. 
S.  694,  84  L.Ed.  1035. 

Cal.— Berg  v.  Berg,  132  P.2d  871, 
56  Cal.App.2d  495— Alphonzo  B. 
Bell  Corporation  v.  Listle,  130  P. 
2d  251,  55  Cal.App.2d  300— Mar- 
desich  v.  C.  J.  Hendry  Co.,  125  P. 
2d  595.  51  Cal.App.2d  567— Kittle 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Davis,  47  P.2d  1089, 
8  Cal.App.2d  504 — Magarian  v. 
Moser,  42  P.2d  385,  5  Cal.App.2d 
208— Mitchell  v.  Rasey,  $3  P.2d 
1056,  13-9  CaLApp.  350— Cameron 
v.  Feather  River  Forest  Homes, 
33  P.2d  884,  159  Cal.App.  373— 
Nestor  v.  Burr,  12  P.2d  479,  124 
CaLApp.  369— McCain  v.  Burch, 
267  P.  748,  92  CaLApp.  141. 

Conn. — Gulf  Oil  Corporation  of  Penn- 
sylvania v.  Newton,  31  A.2d  462 
130  Conn.  37. 

Fla. — Hoyt  v.  Evans,  109  Bo.  311,  91 
Fla,  1053. 

Idaho. — Hand  v.  Twin  Falls  County 
236  P.  536,  40  Idaho  638. 

Ind.— Gibraltar  Realty  Co.  v.  Secur- 
ity Trust  Co.,  136  N.E.  636,  192 
Ind.  502— Indianapolis  Real  Estate 
Board  v.  Willson,  187  N.E.  400,  98 
Ind.App.  72. 

Mass.-rPerkins  v.  Becker's  Conserv- 
atories, 61  N.B.2d  833. 

N.T. — J.  C.  Whritenour  Co.  v.  Co 
lonial  Homes  Co.,  205  N.T.S.  299 
209  App.Div.  676. 

NX.— Glenn  v.  Gate  City  Life  Ins 
Co.,  18  S.E.2d  113,  220  N.C.  672. 

UP. — Corpus  Juris  quoted  in.  Miel 
carek  v.  Riske,  21  N.W.2d  218,  221 

Okl.— Winters  v.  Birch,  36  P.2d  907 
169  Okl.  237. 

Or. — Maeder  Steel  Products  Co.  v 
Zanello,  220  P.  155,  109  Or.  56 

Tex. — City  of  Temple  v.  ^itchel 
Civ.App.,  180  S.W.2d  959— Brad 
dock  v.  Brockman,  Civ. App.,  29  S 


W.2d  811— Weathered"  v.  Meek,  Civ. 
App.,  268  S.W.  516. 

3  C.J.  P  1170  note  37. 
The  pleadings  may  "be  considered 

n  connection  with  the  verdict,  and 

acts  admitted  therein  may  be  con- 

idered  in  aid  of  the  verdict  in  or- 
der to  support  the  judgment.— Law 
v.  Coleman,  159  S.E.  679,  173  Ga,  68 

C.J.  p  1174  notes   66,   67. 
Judgments  held  supported  *y  verdict 
or  findings 

Cal. — Mirich  v.  Underwriters  at 
Lloyd's  London,  149  P.2d  19,  64 
Cal.App.2d  522— Smoll  v.  Webb, 
130  P.2d  77-3,  55  CaLApp.2d  456— 
Honsberger  v.  Durfee,  130  P.2d 
189,  55  Cal.App.2d  68— Murray  v. 
Babb,  86  P.2d  146,  30  Cal.App.2d 
301— Easterly  v.  Cook,  35  P.2d 
164,  140  CaLApp.  115— McCon- 
ville  v.  Superior  Court  within  and 
for  Los  Angeles  County,  248  P. 
553,  78  CaLApp.  203— Rosener  v. 
Hanlon  Dry  Dock  &  Shipbuilding 
Co.,  236  P.  183,  71  CaLApp.  767 
— Munford  v.  Humphreys,  229  P. 
860,  68  CaLApp.  530. 

Conn.— Butler  v.  Solomon,  18  A.2d 
685,  127  Conn.  613. 

Ga._- Odom  v.  Attaway,  162  IS.E.  279, 
173  Ga.  883— Cason  v.  United  Real- 
ty &  Auction  Co.,  0.31  S.E.  161,  161 
Ga.  374. 

Ind.— Peru  Heating  Co.  v.  Lenhart, 
95  N.E.  680,  48  Ind.App.  "319. 

Ky.— Asher  v.  Gibson,  250  S.W.  860, 
199  Ky.  175. 

N.C— In  re  Escoffery,  3  S.B.2d  425, 
216  N.C.  19. 

Tex. — Starr  v.  Schoellkopf  Co.,  113 
S.W.2d  1227,  131  Tex.  263. 

83.  U.S. — Mutual  Ben.  Health  &  Ac- 
cident Ass'n  v.  Thomas,  C.C.A. 
Ark.,  123  F.2d  353--Manjon  v.  Le 
bron,  C.C.A.Puerto  Rico,  23  F.2d 
266. 

Alaska. — Corpus  Juris  cited  in 
Mitchell  v.  Beaver  Dredging  Co. 
8  Alaska  566,  582. 

Ariz. — Rodriauez  v.  Childress,  27 
P.  921,  «4  Ariz.  489. 

Ark. — Missouri  Pacific  Transp.  Co 
v.  Sharp,  108  S.W.2d  579,  194  Ark. 
405— ^Powers  v.  Wood  Parts  Corpo 
ration,  44  S.W.2d  324,  184  Ark. 
1032. 

Cal. — Prothero  v.  Superior  Court  o 
Orange  County,  238  P.  357,  19 
Cal.  43'9— Cappelmann  v.  Toung 
App.,  165  P.2d  950— Berg  v.  Berg 
132  iP.2d  871,  56  Cal.App.2d  495— 
Gossman  v.  Gossman,  126  P.2 
178.  52  Cal.App.2d  184— Phipps  v 

138 


Superior  Court  in  and  for  Alameda 
County,  89  P.2d  698— Leeper  v. 
Ginsberg,  85  P.2d  548,  29  CaLApp. 
2d  722— Magarian